Slashdot Mirror


WordPress Bans Fascist Website Linked To Charlottesville Killer (fastcompany.com)

tedlistens writes: WordPress has said that it does not censor websites like that of self-proclaimed fascist group Vanguard America. But last night, the group's site was taken offline for violating the company's terms of service. The about-face was likely prompted by Vanguard's participation in last weekend's Unite the Right rallies in Charlottesville, Virginia, during which James Alex Fields drove his car into a crowd, killing one person and injuring 19. Fields has claimed allegiance to Vanguard America; the group denies that Fields was a member. For WordPress to drop a site, even a fascist site, is a very big deal; the same is true of GoDaddy's and Google's decision to drop their registration of neo-Nazi site the Daily Stormer (another site that GoDaddy previously said would be permitted on free speech grounds). WordPress hasn't explained the shift in its approach to the website: the company's user agreement and terms of service have not changed since Charlottesville. That policy, like that of other tech platforms, has long stood by strict neutrality and freedom of expression. That may now be changing.

451 comments

  1. Fields has claimed allegiance to Vanguard America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So I should move my IRAs to Schwab? I don't want to be associated with anyone this bad at mario cart.

  2. Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strike? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm wondering whether the tech companies are really trying to start building in their roles as service providers for a societally conscious purpose, or if it's just trying to stay ahead of potential PR nightmares that could bring about fire and fury from a public demanding action against the alt-right.

  3. Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?

    If Vanguard America hasn't distanced themselves from the actions of this alleged member, perhaps they could be classified as a terrorist organization? This isn't necessarily an issue of free speech any more than breaking the law is.

    1. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do.
      ==
      Illegal content and conduct.
              Self-explanatory.

      Directly threatening material.
              Do not post direct and realistic threats of violence. That is, you cannot post a genuine call for violence—or death—against an individual person, or groups of persons. This doesn’t mean that we’ll remove all hyperbole or offensive language.

    2. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      Vanguard America has been trying to distance themselves.

      "Yeah, I know the guy was photographed with us earlier in the day, and he was carrying one of our shields in the picture, but he's not with us really."

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    3. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by tsqr · · Score: 4, Informative

      Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?

      If Vanguard America hasn't distanced themselves from the actions of this alleged member, perhaps they could be classified as a terrorist organization? This isn't necessarily an issue of free speech any more than breaking the law is.

      From the WordPress User Guidelines:

      Directly threatening material.
      Do not post direct and realistic threats of violence. That is, you cannot post a genuine call for violence—or death—against an individual person, or groups of persons. This doesn’t mean that we’ll remove all hyperbole or offensive language.

    4. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by c · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also from the WordPress User Guidelines:

      Bear in mind that these are just guidelines â" interpretations are solely up to us. These guidelines are not exhaustive and are subject to change.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    5. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paint it however they like, if censorship actions shows a political bias it could be a serious DMCA Safe Harbor issue.

      Wordpress, Google, Twitter, Godaddy, etc. begin editorializing content then they can no longer be shielded by the DMCA safe harbor provision which holds them immune from lawsuit for customer uploaded data.

      If you editorialize some content, you have to editorialize it all.

      Without the DMCA Safe Harbor provision one can directly sue Wordpress or GoDaddy, etc. without having to go through the DMCA takedown procedure. They're hosting infringing content, then they're directly liable without the safe habor.

      If you editorialize that means you'll have to have a team of moderators screening all content. Note that both Twitter and Google now have SJWs like Anita Sarkeesian and zealots like the ADL who paint nearly everyone right of the left as "racist sexist homophobic", etc.

      The first solid step in a communist revolution after subversion and demoralization of the host is to enact censorship using terrorism and media controls. Just sayin'.

    6. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by rickb928 · · Score: 0

      Excellent. Arbitrary decisions and criteria to be expected.

      Dag nab it, I was hoping to move my site to a WordPress platform. Pathetic. I'm stuck.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    7. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Kind of like the BLM guy who murdered 5 police?

      "Yeah sure, he was at the rally, a member of three BLM Facebook groups, attended six meetings, followed us all on Twitter... But he's not one of us!"

      "O ok lol," says media.

    8. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Virtually all service providers have such terms and very few of them would hestitate to reach for them at this moment.

      And no it's not a free speech issue. Nazis can go host their own content with their own storage and tools.

    9. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They can arbitrarily ban you on the grounds of "Because FUCK YOU that's why!" no matter what their TOS says. This is the right of anyone who owns a business.

    10. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by c · · Score: 1

      Arbitrary decisions and criteria to be expected.

      Well, yes. That's how businesses operate, and you get what you pay for. If you don't want to risk someone pulling the plug on you at a moments notice for whatever criteria they decide is important at the time, then you pay the money to get a legally binding service contract that specifically lays out the specific conditions under which that can or can't happen.

      --
      Log in or piss off.
    11. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Same as muslims calling for the execution of atheists and gays? Shut them down too?

      How about BLM saying there are "too many white people"?

      A business that is open to the general public must serve the general public. A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    12. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?

      Don't know about WordPress, but I have yet to see a single web site in my country that wouldn't have "don't break the law with your contents" in its ToS, and inciting violence is definitely illegal around here.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by halivar · · Score: 1

      Uh, so, I need to get this cake, see...

    14. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have they done the same thing for antifa that is actually a classified as a terrorist organization by the DHS in New Jersey?
      Have they done the same thing for BAMN that have their leaders arrested for violence and inciting riot ?

      Are we going to get the same treatment to these organizations from tech or is the hypocrisy going to continue?

    15. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.

      This. We need to seriously have protections for the 1st amendment online (that is purely about speech) as we do with other protections in the 14th amendment.

      The more I hear about the actions various progressive tech companies are taking online to speech they don't like (beyond nazis) the more I fear for the future for the internet and future of freedom of speech that is necessary for democracy.

      The government won't be far behind with this pro-censorship sentiment as we have seen with the Charlottsville government illegally rescinding a right to protest and arbitrarily retracting the protection of law.

    16. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DrXym · · Score: 0
      Whataboutwhataboutwhatabout....

      A service provider provides that service under terms and conditions. Violate those terms and they'll throw your ass out of the door figuratively and / or literally.

      I'm not even sure why you mention a baker. I assume its a weak attempt to conflate two separate issues.

    17. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Same as muslims calling for the execution of atheists and gays? Shut them down too?

      Why on Earth would you think that's even a question? Oh wait, you're probably one of those moronic right wing nutjobs who thinks "Not all Muslims are terrorists" = "We love Islam and agree with ISIS's interpretation of it!"

      How about BLM saying there are "too many white people"?

      BLM has never said anything of the sort. BLM is a diverse coalition of people who are concerned that black people keep getting killed by the police for ridiculous reasons, and that there's too much apologism for such killings. You can probably find an individual member who has said something ridiculous, but the movement as a whole would disagree with it.

      A business that is open to the general public must serve the general public. A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.

      In general, no. Businesses can pick and choose who they serve as long as they don't discriminate against protected classes of people - essentially minorities who are historically and institutionally discriminated against for things beyond their reasonable control. You can implement policies banning libertarians, Marvel fans, Bronies, and people who like Hawaiian Pizza from your wedding cake store, you just can't ban gays for being gay.

      If you actually listened to people who aren't RWNJs, you'd know all this. But you choose not to. Here's a thought though: last year, Hillary Clinton warned you that Donald Trump was attracting a large following among white supremacists. She said:

      You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump's supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right?

      The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic -- you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.

      He has given voice to their websites that used to only have 11,000 people -- now how 11 million. He tweets and retweets their offensive hateful mean-spirited rhetoric. Now, some of those folks -- they are irredeemable, but thankfully they are not America.

      But the other basket -- and I know this because I see friends from all over America here -- I see friends from Florida and Georgia and South Carolina and Texas -- as well as, you know, New York and California -- but that other basket of people are people who feel that the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures, and they're just desperate for change.

      Most Republicans didn't merely refuse to heed her warning, but they lied about what she said and pretended she'd claimed all Republicans are racists, despite the fact she said nothing remotely similar to that, and even recognized that the other half of Trump's supporters were desperate people with legitimate grievances.

      Clinton was right then, and HAD CONSERVATIVES HEEDED HER WARNING we'd not be in the horrific situation of having a President who panders to, and gives power, to Neo-Nazis, and who is in probability one himself.

      Maybe, just maybe, you should start listening to what liberals, Democrats, and the left in general actually say, rather than pretending they're saying stupid things, inventing whole stupid opinions for them to have, just so you can feel better about yourself?

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bakery thing is cute argument, if you completely ignore the context and direction of the hate and discrimination.

    19. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by skids · · Score: 1

      Don't go down that road. I did in the other thread and had to contend with a bunch of moron ACs who can't hack logical term elimination and who thought I was suggesting jerkoff nazis were a protected minority.

      I mean, unless you don't give a screw about ACs. You know what, nevermind...

    20. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The argument made for the bakery is that a company selling to the general public must sell its product to everyone regardless of terms and conditions. Otherwise said bakery could have a written and posted term and condition that exempts them from decorating gay themed wedding cakes.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    21. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DrXym · · Score: 2

      As I said, a weak conflation. A bakery might be required to offer service to people without discriminating against them based on their sex, race or sexuality. It doesn't mean a bakery can't throw you out on your ass because you want to hold a white power meeting in their building, or order a cake with racist symbols or words on it. Because they can.

    22. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      So we don't have imans preaching hate and death to jews, atheists and gays here in the United States? Really?

      Did you miss BLM members saying "too may whites?" Really? Look up the Trinity Professor: Johnny Eric Williams. You missed that?

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    23. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Dag nab it, I was hoping to move my site to a WordPress platform. Pathetic. I'm stuck.

      Why are you stuck? There's no shortage of companies that will host whatever site you want. You can even still use the Wordpress software if you wish. You have myriad options.

    24. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      No, the argument for the bakery was that they discriminated against a legally protect class (both under state and federal law).

      There is no legal requirement for them (or anyone) to sell cakes to everyone who walks in the door. They just can't refuse based on the wannabe customer being a protected class.

      If the bakery had just said "No" without explanation, or offered some other explanation, there would not have been an issue.

    25. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DogDude · · Score: 2

      A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.

      A public facing business cannot discriminate against a protected class. Being an asshole is not a protected class.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    26. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      No. They must bake the cake regardless of the symbols. And you mixed things up- the bakery is not a meeting place so holding a meeting there - no matter the meeting is not part and parcel of what they're selling to the general public.

      It is not up to Staples to decide whether or not they like what you're going to say before they sell you paper. Or Bic before selling a pen. Or Toshiba before selling you a laptop. Or Wordpress before selling you use of their CMS.

      Else we can then say - why are you selling to Muslims who are promoting the death of gays and atheists? Or Christians who are promoting anti-abortion rallies. Or anything else people disagree with.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    27. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      Ha. Ha. Ha.

      So now some people are protected and some not. Some ideas are protected and some not.

      By the way f**k fascists and f**k socialists and f**k racists - but a free society values free speech.

      You realize these dipwads held get togethers for years and zero violence and zero coverage. Now, thanks to anti-free speech people like you they're all over the news. The f**king Streisand Affect all over again.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    28. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Seriously no. Nothing in the DMCA requires a hosting company to keep up white supremacist sites.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    29. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Troll

      The First Amendment applies to the state, not to private actors. Perhaps you have a reading comprehension problem, so here it is:

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

      See the first word in that sentence. It says "CONGRESS". It doesn't say "GOOGLE", it doesn't say "PRIVATE BUSINESS", it doesn't say "JOE JOHNSON OF ALBANY NEW YORK". It says "CONGRESS".

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    30. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      Excusing behavior based on "they did it too!" but are these actual concerns you are bringing up?

      Same as muslims calling for the execution of atheists and gays
      I've heard this happens in some countries -- but from Muslims in the US who are using businesses in the US? Are 1.5 Billion people responsible for what maybe a few thousand people do? I'm all for shutting them down -- but is ISIS on our servers?

      How about BLM saying there are "too many white people"?
      There was a photo once of some guy pooping into a cop car. It was labelled "Occupy Wall Street shows you what they think." Was it OWS? Do you have an in context quote from BLM or is it something a guy said once, or was it this guy I know told me?

        A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.
      I don't think that's correct.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    31. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      So now some people are protected and some not.

      Well, it's more accurate to say that some people have greater protections than others. And arguably for very good reasons.

      Some ideas are protected and some not.

      Not true. "Protected class" is about classes of people, not what ideas they have.

    32. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first amendment isn't even the right avenue of attack on the real problem, which is corporate stranglehold on access to the internet. The internet has devolved into a network of monopolies and cartels in related fields. Google gets 40% of all ad revenue worldwide; Facebook owns the social media segment; in the US, a few companies have government-granted monopolies over service regions: a handful of companies control access to the internet. Their control should come under anti-trust scrutiny rather than first-amendment scrutiny. With sufficient competition within the markets providing service, there will always be a place for every form of speech.

    33. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      BLM has never said anything of the sort.

      You're right, they said far worse. Like saying all "white people are sub-human" I've heard that before...coming from black supremacists. Very uh...diverse, so progressive. Gee, they're just like Margaret Sanger and her belief that blacks were sub-human need to be culled, and the perfect way to do that was via planned parenthood. Never mind her pro-eugenics stance or anything...

      Clinton was right then, and HAD CONSERVATIVES HEEDED HER WARNING we'd not be in the horrific situation of having a President who panders to, and gives power, to Neo-Nazis, and who is in probability one himself.

      You didn't even listen to him when he blamed both sides for the violence did you. You're so heavily invested in identity politics that you're willing to swallow whatever bullshit is shoved down your throat. You also likely believe that antifa is really the good guys, and really aren't just racists on the left.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    34. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      BLM has never said anything of the sort.

      I think he means they said something like "there are not enough black voices in this debate, there are too many white people whose opinions are listened to and things are not improving".

      Then he took that substring and quoted it out of context to make idiots think that BLM advocates genocide.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    35. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      Er no, they must not. There is no obligation for a baker to offer you service providing it is not for discriminatory reasons. Even discrimination has to be tested in court. The rest of your argument falls apart because again, it's a weak conflation. Two different issues. Two different issues that don't even bear comparison.

      It doesn't even work as a comparison to a software service where the AUP and TOS are preconditions of using the service and violation will result in termination of service.

    36. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Etcetera · · Score: 1

      Does WordPress have anything in their terms of service about inciting violence, committing crimes, or breaking the law in general?

      Probably -- most sites and platforms have something buried somewhere in their T&C's to cover their ass --- at least if they had a good lawyer look it over before posting it.

      The key is on the term "incitement". That has a specific legal meaning because it's already a crime. Orgs can that want to make a stand for free speech can (and probably should) consolidate their T&C's into banning "illegal activities" and leave it at that. Doesn't mean they can't forward suspicions off to the police, for example, and allow the legal system to work its course. But despite the last 6-7 years, there's a big difference between "speech we don't like" and "illegal activity".

      If they want to have a more proactive impact on their platform (to the extent that, in GoDaddy's case, domain registration is a "platform"), then they can put whatever they want into their T&Cs, and they'll usually add a catch-all "at our discretion" to let them not have to explain themselves too much.

      For WP or something that imports to have "community" features of some type (and isn't at the scale of a national utility, like Facebook or Twitter) this is pretty defensible. Payment processors have long exercised discretion about billing for adult sites and other things (although that had been more of a direct business decision before AIUI). For a domain name registar, not so much. Plenty of horrible (but not illegal) content is out there on the internet already. If GoDaddy wants to take a stand for a nicer Internet, it could start by not offering anonymized domain registrations. PO Boxes are fine, but we're supposed to have useful contact information there.

      My two cents.

    37. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DRJlaw · · Score: 4, Informative

      No. They must bake the cake regardless of the symbols.

      No, they must bake the cake if they would bake the same cake for others without basing their refusal upon the customer being a member of a protected class.

      Here's a source backing my assertion. Where's a source backing yours?

    38. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      Did you miss the part where it said "we need to seriously have"? Most people know the 1st restricts the government. People are suggesting we extend it.

    39. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      And those people are morons. As I said yesterday, your right to speak your mind doesn't, and nor should it, come with a right to demand someone give you a microphone.

      And reading a lot of these comments, no, i don't think a lot of those invoking the First Amendment have any idea what it applies to, or how it would completely contravene the entire intent of the First Amendment to try to force public actors to broadcast all messages.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    40. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The Internet is a global entity. I'm quite sure many of these alt-right groups would have no problem, for instance, getting hosting services in Russia.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    41. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bakery thing is cute argument, if you completely ignore the context and direction of the hate and discrimination.

      Yes, the hate must only flow from the Left to the Right.

    42. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      Have they done the same thing for antifa that is actually a classified as a terrorist organization by the DHS in New Jersey?
      Have they done the same thing for BAMN that have their leaders arrested for violence and inciting riot ?

      Are we going to get the same treatment to these organizations from tech or is the hypocrisy going to continue?

      Didn't you get the memo?

      Some animals are more equal than others.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    43. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      They're not writing speeches, they giving opinions. I think people know what the first can and can't do, but they want the spirit of the first to be expressed in more places than just government. I'm on the fence. If every company on the Internet were to ban a type of speech, then the spirit of the free speech has been lost online. I don't like that. You can argue that other hosts and search engines and payment providers and so on would rise up and offer services, but some groups will be marginalized, you can argue rightly or wrongly. I've made the business vs government statement myself a number of times, but there's plenty of reason to be concerned and to hear out both sides of the argument. They both have valid points, pros and cons. Consider it an extension of net neutrality, instead it's content neutrality.

    44. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      By the way f**k fascists and f**k socialists and f**k racists - but a free society values free speech.

      You realize these dipwads held get togethers for years and zero violence and zero coverage. Now, thanks to anti-free speech people like you they're all over the news. The f**king Streisand Affect all over again.

      SRSLY? THe violence of these people has been caused by the streisand effect?

      First off, the KKK has had a long long history of violence and killing https://www.splcenter.org/figh...

      By your estimation, gentle and lawful Klan members were forced into violence in 1871 as well. Just an example. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/...

      Fucking liberals in the 1920's http://www1.assumption.edu/ahc...

      So if I read you right, it is liberals and anti-free speech people who are driving these gentle and innocent folks to kill them, correct? What a crock of shit. "We're gonna hang some Black people - and when you don't allow us to post that, we gonna go out and hang some Black people - and it's your fault because you didn't allow us to post that we're gonna hang some black people" That logic don't fly.

      I have this Simpson's reference of Nelson grabbing Milhouse's arm and hitting him with it, saying "Quit Hitting Yourself! Quit hitting yourself! Quit Hitting yourself!

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    45. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lefties incited random Trotsky-jewboi violence. Att-right was armed and disciplined . When the right turns to violence they will butcher-out progressive pigs by the cartload and googleplex ... so keep on pissing around Trotsky bitch.

    46. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First and foremost you guys need some protections against Nazis and your own president.

    47. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Muslims - on tape, in the US saying kill jews and atheists. If white racists are to be banned for hate speech then shouldn't that be as well?

      BLM activist, a professor, saying less white people is a good thing; that white people are the problem. If KKK said that about black people would you be outraged and OK with preventing them from speaking.

      A bakery must sell to everyone. (There was a lawsuit over decorating a cake for a gay wedding - maybe you heard of it.) If that's so then the same should be so for Facebook, WordPress, Twitter. One must sell to all.

      I'm for free speech - that includes the speech of those which I consider to be abhorrent.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    48. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      No. You read it wrong.

      Let these fukwads have their get together. Don't protest them. Don't go there. Don't give them attention. They'll post their garbage on youtube and whatever and we get on with our lives.

      Now going there with bats and trying to bash a fash means you give them air time; you create sh!t for no reason - and on top of all that you're attacking free speech and freedom of assembly at the same time that you're bashing a fash.

      So. What did we gain? Nothing. Now we got 1000s of people coming out of the woodwork denigrating freedom of speech because in this one instance it helps a bunch of fascist idiots.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    49. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      A definite point, but I'm not sure it was a judicial precedent. Did it get to the appellate level? You could also bring up Rosa Parks, which got all the way to the supreme court. So is hosting a web site "public accommodations"?

      It could be a very interesting case, should someone choose to pursue it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    50. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      I think you missed my point.

      The 14th amendment is about equal protection of the law regardless of race. The civil rights movement applies that protection to businesses. We force businesses to be the stewards of protected classes all the time because we found it necessary for the public good. If you are a public accommodation you are required to protect certain classes and uphold the law.

      We need to seriously consider protections for the 1st amendment to apply to online businesses as what the 14th amendment and civil rights did for race. The internet is all about speech and if we let the gatekeepers to the internet control what is acceptable it is functionally no different than if the government censored it.

      We cannot have a healthy democracy without freedom of speech. We, as a society, do not value free speech if we allow businesses to infringe on the rights of individuals. It's already been established to force businesses to protect the individual over their interests. We need to afford the most fundamental right written in the constitution the same protections we do for race, religion, and sex.

    51. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Not specifically, but there are general terms that may apply. I'm no lawyer, and these folks deserve their unpopularity, but I think a good lawyer could find lots of precedents. One I think might apply is Rosa Parks. This isn't a bus company, but the government supports and regulates the use of the wires and radio waves, so you could probably argue that it's a public accommodation.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    52. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep declaring weak conflation but provide no evidence or logic for your bare assertion.

    53. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is generally a very slippery slope. There is no hard and fast line one can draw on what constitutes permissible and impermissible. Really, there isn't.

      Once you go down this path, you can move that line, or the line is moved for you by others.

      This is a very ... very bad idea.

    54. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Me thinks your are reaching. There's only ONE bus company in town. There are tens of thousands of hosting companies. Big difference. Now if their ISP cut them off, maybe.

    55. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Not specifically, but there are general terms that may apply.

      Can you cite the relevant statutes so that we can review expert opinion on the matter?

      I'm no lawyer

      Obviously. Very obviously.

      I think a good lawyer could find lots of precedents

      You're not even a bad lawyer. You'll excuse me if I place no value on your opinion regarding what a good lawyer could do.

      One I think might apply is Rosa Parks.

      Rosa Parks couldn't possibly be a precedent. The Montgomery segregation laws were struck down in Browder v. Gayle---which, if you'll note, does not include her name because she was not a party in that case.

      the government supports and regulates the use of the wires and radio waves, so you could probably argue that it's a public accommodation.

      Public accommodations are defined by the Civil Rights Act, which does not protect ideologies---including such things as white supremacy, nationalism, or racism.

      You could argue that these services meet the requirements for public accommodations, and you might even prevail on that point. But the parties in question are not eligible for protection under the law. It is perfectly legal to discriminate against ideologies.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    56. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are coming out of the woodwork now because they feel comfortable. They have one of their members as the president of the United States. Heil Trump!!! Blood and soil. Amirite?

    57. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I've stated three times what the problem is. Use your brain. If you need a clue, try googling consumer discrimination law and see if you can figure it out.

    58. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by DrXym · · Score: 2
      Exactly. If a bakery has a standard applies to all then it isn't discrimination. It's a dumb conflation of two things. One bakery can be found to be discriminatory for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding but another not if it refuses to write inflammatory words on a cake that violate their policy.

      Some people appear to think that providing a service is a carte blanche to use it for any purpose whatsoever with no say from the service provider. It isn't.

    59. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize twitter and other services do police ISIS material. Their accounts get banned on twitter constantly. If you incite violence then a company is in every right to deny you service.
      Period.

      Also, you are taking the BLM quote out of context because you want it to fit your narrative. Sounds like something Fox News would do. What was said was that we have too many white people in our government and not enough black. Which is a 100% true statement. Not inciting violence. Apples and oranges. Black people need more representation in our government.

      muhhhh free speech. Companies != government and racist shitheads != protected classes.

    60. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Race is a protected class. That includes white.

      And that's the problem with identity politics. It may have started with good intentions but when you introduce tribalism, it's only a matter of time before majority groups decide to team together in the same way as the minority groups are.

    61. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Equals should say protected. Because some groups need it. Because they have been discriminated against and slapped around because of what they are. LGBT/African Americans have all been discriminated against for centuries. They had laws against them. Name one law against a white person that also doesn't apply to a black person. YOU CAN'T. Times are getting better. But we aren't out of the woods yet.

      Make America great again. :/ Some
      Of us thought America was NEVER great. And we wish to make it great by making sure everyone is on equal footing.

    62. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Try not being a Nazi.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    63. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      The argument made in the bakery case is that a company selling to the general public must sell its product to everyone regardless of terms and conditions. Otherwise said bakery could have a written and posted term and condition that exempts them from decorating gay themed wedding cakes.

      No, the argument made for the bakery was that Oregon state law explicitly forbids retail businesses from discriminating against or refusing to sell to customers on the basis of their sexual orientation. The bakery could have refused to sell to the couple because they weren't wearing shoes if it wanted to, but it could not, by law, refuse to sell to them because they were gay.

      And anyone who thinks the bakery's Constitutional rights were violated will need to challenge the Oregon law on that basis in a Federal court. Good luck.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    64. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      It is not up to Staples to decide whether or not they like what you're going to say before they sell you paper.

      Sure it is. They can ask you whatever they want. The difference is, if they did, you just wouldn't shop there.

      And the bakery argument is a different issue. That was a case specific to the State of Oregon, which has a law explicitly forbidding businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. If Staples refused to sell you paper because you were gay, Staples would get slapped with a fine. If Staples refused to sell you paper because you were a white supremacist, nothing would happen and you'd just go to Office Depot instead. It's as simple as that.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    65. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's okay to post the same content as alt-right as long as you are extreme left (Antifa) and the hate and racism is directed against whites

    66. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bakery can deny to make a cake with hate speech

    67. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      A bakery must sell to all customers and WordPress must sell to all customers.

      Oh look, it's someone being wrong on the internet.

      A bakery is not required to sell to all customers. A bakery is only prohibited from declining customers for a few specific reasons. One of those reasons is sexual orientation---in Colorado. Other prohibited reasons apply nationwide: nationality, race, sex, and religion.

      There is no obligation to serve white supremacists. WordPress is perfectly within its rights to ban Vanguard America.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    68. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      There's a difference. Black Lives Matter does not advocate violence. Their goal is to reduce violence. BLM is not a black supremecist movement and does not advocate the removal of all other ethnicities from America.

    69. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      They are coming out of the woodwork now because they feel comfortable. They have one of their members as the president of the United States. Heil Trump!!! Blood and soil. Amirite?

      Blut und Boden, for the true faithful.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    70. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But was not the issue because they had no issue with the person BEING gay, merely not wanting to make a 'gay cake'. They had offered to make another cake.

      Hm, what would have happened if the person employed at the bakery had been 14. Could they have been forced to make a cake with some pornographic imagery, or would it run afoul of obscenity laws? "I'm sorry, I'm gay, so your kid needs to detail a mantrain out of icing for me".

    71. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being gay is not an idea, are you really dumb enough not to understand that? Do you really not see the difference between discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin or the way they were born, and whether they choose to walk around with swastikas and Hitler-quotes on their t-shirts making nazi salutes and yelling about eliminating people they consider undesirable? Are the walls of the conservative bubble you live in really that thick?

    72. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      A bakery must sell to all customers

      No it doesn't. Maybe you should look into that again.

    73. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      nazis are not a protected class.

    74. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're conflating two different things. A bakery cannot refuse to sell to somebody because of who they are. They can refuse to sell to someone because of how they choose to act in and around their shop.

    75. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      So a bakery of Woolworths can deny service to anyone they want for whatever reasons they want.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    76. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Should be:

      So a bakery or Woolworths can deny service to anyone they want for whatever reasons they want.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    77. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      They openly advocate violence, they've openly called whites sub-human. That right up makes them black supremacists, and no different then any other racist. Pretend all you want that what those links show are fairy tails, there's a reason why their support evaporated like morning dew.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    78. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you never thought America was great then GTFO you're in the wrong place.

      Why not go to Saudi Arabia and fight for women's and LGBTQ rights there?

      Oh right, that would take actually caring about *real* hate & discrimination, rather than the kind you pull out of your ass here where it's nice & safe.

      Fucking two-faced cowardly pussies!

    79. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Erm. He was referring to the people decrying the white supremacists as coming out of the woodwork. I'm sure Trump will be delighted to hear you include him in that group.

    80. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      . LGBT/African Americans have all been discriminated against for centuries. They had laws against them. Name one law against a white person that also doesn't apply to a black person.

      Are there any laws against a black person that doesn't also apply to a white person?

      Just that historical injustice has been recognised in modern laws by demanding that everybody gets equal treatment.

      I find those modern laws very easy to follow. I think they're great. For that reason I think people that attack others based on the race or political views should be prevented and prosecuted.

      we wish to make it great by making sure everyone is on equal footing

      Then why are you defending the suggestion that some animals are treated as being more equal than others?

      Sounds like illegal discrimination to me, and fuck all to do with actual equality.

    81. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I've found the Federalist to be at best highly unreliable. Can you link to some more mainstream sources?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    82. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Sure, it's a potential problem. Organizations have real troubles when US banks are blackmailed into not dealing with them, for example. However, there's lots of people and sites on the Internet, and if you have a decent connection you can always set up your own. I'm not real interested in setting up real laws and regulations for a problem that likely won't actually happen.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    83. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Quick question: who has a problem with Wordpress banning violent imams? I certainly wouldn't want them to deny service to imams in general, though.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    84. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't know what happened specifically, but I did read the Finding of Facts. From what I actually know, it would appear that the bakers were rude and abusive in their refusal, rather than simply telling the couple "No, go somewhere else", which is equally illegal in some states, only if you can show it was because of membership in a protected class.. That's conjecture, but well-founded conjecture. The internet harassment campaign the bakery started against the couple is well-documented, as is some of the harm it caused the couple.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    85. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      The problem is who decides? I don't think this is what corporations should do, or are qualified to judge. This is what courts and governments are for. If the courts deem said website violates the first amendment then it needs to be brought down. If the courts judge that this group is a terrorist organization then ... I'm conflicted - what if a government declares its opponents as ipso facto terrorists? Should it have that kind of power? I don't think so.

      In fact I don't even think that the government has the right to force the pages to be brought down.

      I think that some speech is not protected, not in the fact that it can be legally prevented, but that one is liable for the actions taken by others.

      Saying "White People are the cause of the world's problems" is racist, stupid and evil.
      Saying "Black People are stupid, violent, and shouldn't be in the United States" is racist, stupid and evil.
      Saying unbelievers are ignorant pigs and not worthy of respects" is stupid and evil.
      But it is still protected speech (in my book) and the Supreme Court.

      Saying "kill all whites / blacks / unbelievers now" is incitement to direct violence and is not protected speech. Meaning, that should someone in the crowd act upon your exhortations that you are to be held liable for the deaths of those innocent people. You can say what you did, and that's not being prevented, but you are now liable for the repercussions.

      So the Iman in florida who was promoting the death of gays (if it can be proved that he said "kill gays") should be held as a responsible party for the Orlando massacre.

      Let's take the "falsely cry fire in a crowded theater" argument. You can say it. But if there is damage, injuries or death - you are held as a responsible party, irrespective of your right to free speech.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    86. Re: Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Did you try looking at the links in the article itself? Those are taken directly form mainstream sources. Or you can read wapo, which comes out defending their violence because civil rights.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    87. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I told you to look into it again, not flip flop illogically between statements.

      The opposite of "must serve everyone", is not "can deny anyone". You're missing a lot of scenarios in between which is also where the law applies.

    88. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Each business decides for its own potential customers. I don't see any other way to do it. We certainly don't want GoDaddy telling Google whether or not to sell DNS services to someone, and we very certainly don't want the government to do so.

      Let's consider the depiction of the murdered woman as a fat useless parasite. That's Free Speech in action, and I find it very offensive. Lots of people would find it very offensive. Are you going to tell a private business that it has to publish that on the same terms as it publishes everything else? That it must print offensive speech by evil people as long it's legal? In one of the countries with the most sweeping protections of free speech in the world? Wouldn't it be better for a business as a business to have some limits other than legality as to what people can say that's associated with them? Nobody's denying Nazi scum the ability to shop around for hosting, or to run their own server (anybody else old enough to remember Banned CPU?).

      I'm sticking to my belief that, while it should be legal, and is, for Nazis to spew their hateful propaganda, nobody should be forced to provide a forum to them. In a world with lots and lots of forums, including ones in different jurisdictions, this doesn't impede free speech.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    89. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

      Imagine the problems with having inconsistent application of principle.

      Person A is banned for saying "Lynch President Obama" and
      Person B is not banned for saying "Lynch President Trump"

      Both are equally wrong or equally acceptable. Now, that's an easy one but it can get very tricky.

      It would be better, easier if these companies stayed out of the decision process. Bic and Pentel are not responsible for what is said, or not said, by the people who use their pens. Let's apply that principle to Go Daddy and Google and Facebook and Twitter.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    90. Re:Are we sure that it's a free spech issue? by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 1

      TORONTO - A co-founder of Black Lives Matter Toronto

      There's no single organization called BLM. Anyone can create a group and call themselves BLM. BLM is really just a Twitter hashtag.

      Whenever someone attributes something to BLM, ask them who exactly said that thing. Normally you'll find out it was a random activist someone ( if that thing was said at all )

      --
      Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  4. Re:Fascist by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, suggestions for what label would be acceptable? Assholes is too broad a term.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. Time to start... by Bartles · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...looking for other sites that violate the "terms of service".

    1. Re:Time to start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suspect that in the coming months we are going to see a huge number of liberal companies change their TOS regarding services.

    2. Re:Time to start... by Zocalo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty sure that there are going to be a lot of people thinking that they might be able to use terms of service to try and suppress sites with dissenting opinions to their own right now, from right across the political spectrum. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and I suspect that GoDaddy, Google, WordPress, and the rest are about to find out it's a very steep and slippery one as well. First they came for the Alt-Right...

      On the otherhand, GoDaddy, Google, WordPress, et al are private companies and as such are free to set their own ground rules in the same way that malls, sports stadiums, and other private venues can - within reason - set their own specific rules while on their private property. A right to freedom of speech means that people have a right to say what they want, but is most certainly does not obligate others to provide them with a soap box to stand-on or force them to listen to what they want to say. As long as they are prepared to live *and* die by that sword, then that's entirely up to them - there are always going to be plenty of alternative vendors that are not quite so choosy.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re: Time to start... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      That's all true, but freedom of speech is more than a government restriction. It's an idea. Eventually, if we keep saying that private society is right to censor we lose the benefits of that idea. A society where you are free to criticize the government or anyone else, but are censored by the gatekeepers of all forms of expression is worthless.

    4. Re:Time to start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike those Conservative outlets that are so open to the Freedom of Expression that they lock down the comments section and delete anything that they disagree with, right?

      Wait...what are those again?

    5. Re: Time to start... by Zocalo · · Score: 2

      I think the key difference is where the restrictions are being applied, and the fundamental differences between public and private spaces as venues for exercising the right to free speech. Within the confines of your own private property or services that you provide should absolutely be entirely up to you, it's when you try and apply that policy beyond those confines that you cross the line into censorship. There's a big difference between defending someone's right to say what they want, even though you might personally disagree with the content, and essentially being required to provide them with a soapbox and megaphone because of that right.

      It's pretty easy to find people who claim that they will defend the rights of others they disagree with to say whatever they want - there are going to be dozens right here in this thread - but good luck finding many who will be happy for them to do so from their front yards, or provide them with the tools to do so. Having to look around in order to find a suitable public venue or amienable private one to get a message out isn't censorship; it's a measure of how acceptable that message is to the general public which is valuable in itself - once you've adjusted for such things as left wing dominance of the media, of course.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    6. Re: Time to start... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Forcing other people to carry your message, to provide the property, resources and megaphone you use is anti-free speech. These companies are private companies, responsible to shareholders and with public reputations. Google, Facebook and all the others cannot be required to carry your message. That is the very definition of anti-speech. One of the consequences of free speech is that people aren't going to like it and will react against it, that IS the natural order of free speech, what the gp poster wants is for those social repercussions to be removed, this damages free speech heavily. Our laws specifically prevent ONLY the government from reacting to that speech, not the rest of society. Calls for these types of restrictions are no different than calls by others to limit hate speech.

      You want to buy your own business fiber connection, servers and such or find like minded people that are willing to pool resources to do so then more power to you, currently that is protected because the business internet connection would be protected under common carrier rules. Unfortunately those rules are about to be removed by the party in charge which will allow the communication provider to refuse to provide service because it's a data service and not a phone line.

    7. Re:Time to start... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They may be private companies, but like the Public Accommodation rules of the CRA (as it applies to businesses) they are not freely within their rights to refuse service for any reason.

      Just ask the Colorado Bakery... or the Pizza parlor that simply said it wouldn't rent its facility out for a gay wedding reception.

      Just because it's "virtual" doesn't skip past something that has been canon since 1964. I personally don't like it, because I believe in private property rights as much as free speech rights, but them's the breaks. And even when they use that against reprehensible neo-Nazi claptrap, it's still against the law. (You can't discriminate based on political views either...)

    8. Re: Time to start... by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      That's all true, but freedom of speech is more than a government restriction. It's an idea. Eventually, if we keep saying that private society is right to censor we lose the benefits of that idea. A society where you are free to criticize the government or anyone else, but are censored by the gatekeepers of all forms of expression is worthless.

      Sadly, you can't have it both ways. The gatekeepers are also entitled to free speech, and by that token, they are well within their right to deny anyone speech using their services. You are free to make your own soap box, however.

      Don't read too much into that, I think suppression is a monumentally bad idea for everyone, but it is within their right.

    9. Re: Time to start... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      And yet a farmer can be forced to host a wedding and a baker can be forced to bake a cake. Are you sure your reasoning is strong and valid?

    10. Re: Time to start... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. You can't force a farmer to host a wedding, and you can't force a baker to bake a cake. Now, if they run a business that serves the public with cakes and wedding venues, there are certain reasons they can't deny people transactions with the business. Nobody was asking the farmers or bakers to do anything out of the ordinary course of their businesses.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re: Time to start... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Thanks for reinforcing my point, David. We are talking about private businesses in this thread.

    12. Re: Time to start... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      We are talking about private businesses that serve the public. We require these businesses to do certain things, such as to conduct business as usual with certain people unless there's a good reason not to do so. Feel free to disagree with that, but remember that we aren't forcing anyone to do something they wouldn't normally do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    13. Re: Time to start... by Bartles · · Score: 1

      Yes we are. We're forcing farmers to host weddings and bakers to make cakes. Can a baker refuse to make a cake for a bar mitzvah? Just saying that they choose to do business, so therefore they have to cater to everyone and anyone if they want to remain in business, is state coercion ultimately backed by force.

  6. ALLEGEDLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    ALLEGEDLY drove the car into the crowd, ALLEGEDLY killed one person and ALLEGEDLY injured others.

    I get emotions are high but articles like this can end in lawsuits. There's a reason even the shittiest of news sources will cover their asses thoroughly as making these claims prior to a conviction in a court of law is grounds for slander and libel lawsuits. Even if they're found guilty afterwards.

    1. Re: ALLEGEDLY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's going to be hilarious when he gets off with manslaughter because protesters had baseball bats and clubs in hand, swinging them BEFORE he hit anything. He was obviously being attacked and in a panic.

    2. Re:ALLEGEDLY by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      ALLEGEDLY drove the car into the crowd, ALLEGEDLY killed one person and ALLEGEDLY injured others.

      Not allegedly. There is ample proof that he did do all of those things.

      The only possible argument isn't about whether or not he did those things, but about what his motive was. I've seen people here trying to make the (incredibly weak, IMO) argument that it was self-defense, but even they aren't trying to imply he didn't actually commit those acts.

    3. Re:ALLEGEDLY by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I will agree that "allegedly" is weaker than required, but I wouldn't go stronger then "apparently". I don't unreservedly trust videos, especially those shot from only one angle and selected by those with an axe to grind. I've been present at a few news shots, and seen how they can bias the reporting with perfectly honest photographs.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:ALLEGEDLY by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Are you really asserting that there is some doubt about whether the car drove into the crowd, injuring people and killing one? I don't think that it's reasonable to try to argue that didn't happen. The only room for argument is over motive.

    5. Re:ALLEGEDLY by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This may sound odd, but as I haven't seen any actual evidence that the accused man was even driving the vehicle in question then I don't find it unreasonable to be cautious about describing his actions.

      Luckily there's a socially accepted mechanism for finding out who was driving the car, what their motives were, the extent to which the driver and their vehicle were at fault for the injuries that occurred and whether this broke the law. Following completion of that process we'll all be able to speak with greater certainty on the event.

    6. Re:ALLEGEDLY by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. You can have any standard of proof you want in terms of what convinces you that something is or isn't true.

      I just hope that you're at least equally skeptical of everything that comes out of the mouths of the "alt-right", the likes of Fox news, and especially of Trump.

    7. Re:ALLEGEDLY by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I do my best to avoid Fox news, if that helps? It's on the list of sources for which I seek corroborating and alternate views, rather than trusting outright.

      There are a mix of such sites on that informal list, across the political spectrum.

  7. inspire magazine telling how to derail trains is b by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 2

    inspire magazine telling how to derail trains is bad.

    This is about free speech and not nazis or there ideas.

    But a site saying the rich jews are putting the working man down is not on the same level. That is covered free speech. and just banning based it being about white power in general is taking there free speech away.

  8. Re:censorship is discrimination and we need to dra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    >there profits

    Paid Russian trolls need to up their grammar game

  9. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Kierthos · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm pretty sure it's heavily weighted towards PR.

    Look, Wordpress is here to make money. You can't make as much money if everyone is boycotting your services because you "support" hate groups.

    --
    Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
  10. "Free speech is great, as long as it's not tits" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "That policy, like that of other tech platforms, has long stood by strict neutrality and freedom of expression."

    I call BS. There are plenty of platforms which like to spout that platitude, but have special rules when it comes to naked people. Other platforms disallow "adult content" altogether. Yet point out that a platform is supporting white supremacists, and the "free speech" card gets played.

    Nudity is treated as more offensive than racism. Think about how messed up that is. We're only seeing this reaction from GoDaddy / WordPress now because there were full-on Nazis in Charlottesville.

     

  11. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's just PR. It's not like corporations are people.

  12. Re:Fascist by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Trolls.

  13. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Congratulations for being a member of the alt-left. Maybe I should just open my wallet for you and avoid the violence?

  14. Re:censorship is discrimination and we need to dra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can simply run his own website, Wordpress don't want to run it for him because they don't want to be associated with views that could/have result in the death of Americans. They just want fluffy sites that generate ad revenue.

    It's the same as when companies decided not to run ads on Fox News after Sean Hannity did his "Russia is innocent/ Seth Rich leaked the data / murdered by Clinton" conspiracy theory (which turned out to be a fake story Hannity invented with Trump, their FBI 'source' is now suing over). It's just business, they don't want to pay advertising money to Fox News to help it undermine America, because customers won't buy their products if they do.

    He is free to set up his own website, a lot of these nazi lot do that.

  15. Re:This is a witch-hunt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No. It is hunting the supporters of a hate killer.

  16. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Troll didn't used to mean what it does now. Now it apparently means "asshole on the internet".

  17. Voltaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Voltaire got it right.

    These neonazi fucks are fuckers and I hope their brand of idiocy fades from the world, but we should be careful about what we do about them. While it's true that the US 1st amendment does not protect you from private companies, and it's ALSO true that it does not guarantee you the right to use someone else's printing press, at some point just a few companies control most human communication, and that may be even more dangerous than government censorship (in the US - different tradeoffs apply elsewhere). If the government censors you for political reasons, you have a chance of recourse in the courts. If internet companies do, they are judge, jury, and executioner. Something becomes qualitatively different when the vast majority of people are using just a few centralized services.

    The internet started out free: if people said something you didn't want to hear, you dropped them in your local killfile - but that choice happened at the individual level, not a company or government making the choice for millions or billions of people at once. Now, the Chinese, many middle eastern countries, Russia, etc, clamping down hard on what people can say online. And we're seeing western countries going the same way, even if the mechanism at play is private instead of public.

    I understand: It's really, really easy to root against neo-nazis. They are about the second more despised target out there. "Of course these companies should shut down neo-nazis! Anyway they're private and don't have to serve people they don't want". But this isn't going to stop at neo-nazis, not in this world of "micro-offenses". The net WILL be cast wider and wider. The bar of unacceptable offense will be gradually lowered, and each step is going to make the next easier. (We already ban this other kind of speech...) Eventually it's going to come for you too. In many countries, for many people, it already has.

    Think carefully before leaping on bandwagons, no matter how good they feel. Yes, neo-nazis are assholes, but let's be careful of how we shove on the internet. Like terrorism: if you radically alter your way of life because assholes flew planes into a building, the terrorists have won and you have lost. Let's not let the neo-nazis win.

    1. Re:Voltaire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jewboi $$$ & media monopoly constitutes effectively a ** shadow gub'mnt** ... a jewboi gub'mnt trashing free speech as much as Stalin, Lenin & Trotsky ever did. Couple that with the fanatic, unconstitutional affirmative action ansatz and ALT-RIGHT has every self-preservation justification for harsh retribution against the progressives.

    2. Re:Voltaire by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Equating your local internet company like wordpress removing a site with the government of china and their broad based government censorship is where your entire argument falls apart. That you don't understand that difference is precisely why you are so wrong.

  18. Can we ban Antifa , BLM, etc. too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that I support any of this alt-right hateful racist evil trash, but this selective enforcement of banning one (extreme) side, while ignoring the other is a scary and goes down a dangerous path. BLM, antifa, etc are just as violent, hateful, evil and racist as any white supremacist group. They don't deserve a platform either.

    Equal enforcement for both shitty sides please.

    1. Re:Can we ban Antifa , BLM, etc. too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Antifa? Those are people who are anti-nazi. There's nothing wrong with being opposed to Nazis.

      I'm just waiting until the Antifa crazies go and pick the wrong Kristallnacht target and a bunch of them end up dead.

    2. Re:Can we ban Antifa , BLM, etc. too? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      BLM is a legitimate campaign with some crazy members. The neo-nazis aren't all that neo, and don't deserve any sympathy. I don't know anything about Antifa.

      That said, equal enforcement is important, and should not be avoided, just because some group you like will be hurt. Either enforce a rule or revoke it. If you have a rule that your service cannot be used to advocate violence and BLM advocates violence, they should be subject to the same criteria as the neo-nazis. If you don't have such a rule, then you shouldn't enforce it against the neo-nazis.

      This gets more difficult when you start considering things like "pattern of behavior", and how that affects degree of enforcement, but still, equal enforcement should be applied.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re: Can we ban Antifa , BLM, etc. too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are apart of the problem.

  19. Point of order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quoting wikipedia:

    Fascism [...] is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism

    In that sense, it's about as overbroad as "Assholes". Plus, of course, it's the favourite slur of the antifa leftist radicals, so if you want to retain some impartiality you can't use the term.

    So how about using their defining ideology? What sort of people are we talking about really? What do they want? If there's twenty different groups, well, start by describing those twenty different groups, and we'll see what to do from there. Oh, and just for fun, let's do all parties to that clusterfsck, left and right and up and down and whatever else.

    "Nazis" and "kkk" are the first to come to mind; don't know if they showed up but they probably weren't the only ones. No idea what you can call Mr. Orange's supporters, what sort of ideology does he espouse? We sort-of know what Ms. Pantsuit stands for, we could call it pantsuitism. Who are her hangers-on and what shall we call them? Who else showed up there?

    Let's name this zoo, and see what sort of collection of animals are on display. No grinding axes... yet, please.

    1. Re:Point of order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not try reading the entire definition instead of stopping with the first sentence of the Wikipedia article?

      Definition of fascism

              1
              often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

              2
              : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control
              early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge

    2. Re:Point of order by alvinrod · · Score: 2

      Orwell had a pretty good commentary on the definition of fascism. It's kind of a worthless label in that as Orwell points out it's been applied to just about every different political group and doesn't have much of a shared definition in common use.

    3. Re:Point of order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not try reading the entire definition instead of stopping with the first sentence of the Wikipedia article?

      Because it really doesn't matter, as has been pointed out. But do go off on this tangent for a bit more since apparently you have nothing else to offer to the discussion.

  20. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 0

    Stop calling everything you don't agree with Fascist.

    Oh come on now it's obviously fascist. I mean, just look at these very peaceful anti-confederate protesters and that fascist chubby kid. Doesn't it look like they not going to do him any harm? I mean, it's right to the point where even the cops are having enough of this bullshit.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  21. Re:Fascist by king+neckbeard · · Score: 1

    Depending on the exact context, authoritarian, nationalist, and supremacist are all pretty descriptive.

    --
    This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
  22. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You better, or I'm going to make sure everyone is told you're a neo-Nazi.

  23. Nice try by Weaselmancer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What? Are you high?

    Fascism is an economic model and has nothing to do with Donald Trump or Nazis.

    Really? Really???

    "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."

    "National Socialism (German: Nationalsozialismus), more commonly known as Nazism, is the ideology and set of practices associated with the 20th-century German Nazi Party, Nazi Germany, and other far-right groups. Sometimes characterised as a form of fascism that incorporates scientific racism and antisemitism, Nazism's development was influenced by German nationalism (especially Pan-Germanism), the Völkisch movement and the anti-communist Freikorps paramilitary groups that emerged during the Weimar Republic after Germany's defeat in First World War."

    I'm sorry, but you absolutely do not get to paint this a color that pleases you.

    Fascism does indeed have a few economic ideas in it, but that's only a very small part of what fascism actually is. Saying Fascism is nothing more than an economic policy is like saying a five course dinner is about the glass of water they serve alongside it.

    --
    Weaselmancer
    rediculous.
    1. Re:Nice try by jedidiah · · Score: 0, Troll

      All of that sounds a lot more like modern liberals really. A new noisy accused racists may want more power and influence but it's the liberals that actually have it. Show up at the wrong rally supporting the wrong political ideas and the virtual mob will ensure that your life is ruined.

      What liberals brag about actually doing is far more scary than what some fringe group is accused of advocating.

      The whole thing would have been a complete non-issue if not for the counter protest and the communist militia that decided to show up. The media and screeching liberals are giving these people far more exposure than they would get on their own.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Nice try by Ryanrule · · Score: 0

      fuck off nazi

    3. Re:Nice try by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "Fascism does indeed have a few economic ideas in it, that's only a very small part of what fascism actually is"

      "“If any man's money can be taken by a so-called government, without his own personal consent, all his other rights are taken with it; for with his money the government can, and will, hire soldiers to stand over him, compel him to submit to its arbitrary will, and kill him if he resists.” - Lysander Spooner

      I'm not a fanboi of Spooner, but he has it right fairly often, such as in this instance. Control of industry and finance is control. Actual, absolute control. How that control is achieved and exercised is interesting, but that control is not a 'small part' of anything.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:Nice try by cryptizard · · Score: 0

      What liberals brag about actually doing is far more scary than what some fringe group is accused of advocating.

      Pretty sure no liberals have actually committed genocide, but there are a scary amount of fringe groups advocating it. You need to get some perspective and realize that taking down a website is not even close to murdering someone.

    5. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This snippet of conversation sums up why we can't have nice things here in the US. While the left and right are going at each other about Confederate monuments and bloodlust:

      o We still have the worst healthcare system of any developed country. If you factor in insurance costs as taxes, a US resident pays more in taxes than any other country in the world.

      o Private prisons are strengthening. They will love having protestors of both sides hauled by the trainload into their compounds for long term warehousing on the taxpayer nickel. Maybe the prisoners can be used for slave labor... gotta monetize the captive assets.

      o Infrastructure isn't going to improve when hate groups on both sides continue to piss on each other.

      o Getting guns off the street isn't going to happen when both sides mob the gun stores continually out of fear. Heck, one gun shop I know has sold out of everything every few months to the point where they wind up closing their doors because there isn't even tactical underwear on the shelves.

      o A real foreign attacker doesn't have to do much other than do propaganda and push at one side or the other.

      So, while the left and right butt heads, the fox is in the henhouse.

    6. Re:Nice try by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Pretty sure no liberals have actually committed genocide

      To the extent that "liberal" is now being taken over by the statist, collectivist, centralized power instincts of the far left, then ... yeah. Liberals have killed untold tens of millions of people in the name of economic justice, social equality, and controlling impure thoughts. Leftist sensibilities nearly destroyed eastern Europe, slaughtered intellectuals across Asia, and are currently starving people into walking out of Venezuela into neighboring countries where they hope to find something to eat besides liberal aspirations for a strong, but it's-for-your-own-good nanny state.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    7. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly; any economic ideas in Fascism are in the pursuit of control, they are not the end in and of themselves.

    8. Re: Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must never have heard of Planned Parenthood

    9. Re:Nice try by cryptizard · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the US here but thanks for trying.

    10. Re: Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More false equivalences from the Masters there of. No one forced anyone to go to Planned Parenthood against their will. Try harder to follow along with everyone else please.

    11. Re:Nice try by Whibla · · Score: 1

      What were the politics of those who practically wiped out the Native Americans?

    12. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the US here but thanks for trying.

      Nice try moving the goalposts.

    13. Re: Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the point; divide and conquer. I don't care whether the media and politicians do it purposely. The result is a nation focused on differences instead commonalities. A small group of people benefit immensely from the distraction.

    14. Re:Nice try by mean+pun · · Score: 1

      What were the politics of those who practically wiped out the Native Americans?

      Colonialism. The views on many political issues at that time were so different that comparison to modern politics is a dangerous minefield at best.

    15. Re:Nice try by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Smallpox doesn't have politics.

    16. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and control of industry and commerce, that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe."

      If you remove the nationalism part, it's a perfect description of left.

    17. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure no liberals have actually committed genocide,

      You must never have heard of Planned Parenthood or Eugenics.

    18. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty sure no liberals have actually committed genocide,

      You should try opening a history book.

    19. Re:Nice try by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      I can see your point, but I would still defend my statement that financial control is a much smaller part of fascism.

      All nations have this control Spooner talks about. No matter what country you are posting from, you are subject to this. Show me a place on this earth where you are not standing on some government's claim. And that government will have laws, taxes, an economy, police and soldiers. There is no escaping that fact.

      The real question is "What Next?" Will the government take that money and build bridges and schools, or concentration camps?

      Intentions matter.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    20. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can define "liberal" in any narrow designation to remove the radical leftists like the New Black Panthers, The Weathermen (Weather Underground) and so forth. They have killed quite a few people... and Stalin was not a rightie. ;)

      A good book to read about leftist terrorism is called "Days of Rage".

    21. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same politics that wipes out any group over the aims of another group. War for territory is FAR FAR more prevalent than war for ideology (religious or otherwise.)

      So shove that strawman where you found it....

    22. Re: Nice try by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Missing the point. Your money is how you survive. Take it, you are diminished.

      That all sure subject to rule, everywhere, didn't make that rule any less, for sure...

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    23. Re:Nice try by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about the US here but thanks for trying.

      Nice cherry pick.

    24. Re: Nice try by Weaselmancer · · Score: 1

      No, I understand your point. My point is that your bank account is of secondary concern when they are loading your entire neighborhood into ovens.

      --
      Weaselmancer
      rediculous.
    25. Re:Nice try by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Communists are to the left much as Nazis are to the right. Right-wing totalitarian regimes haven't killed as many as left-wing, but in the Twentieth Century they killed at a considerably higher rate.

      If I'm to be associated with Communist rule, then it's only fair that you be associated with Nazi rule. In both cases, we'd be projecting the worst excesses to entire political philosophies.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  24. If you're cheering this by mpercy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    action and google's and godaddy's, etc. just remember your position on this when GoHillary.com or BlackLivesMatter.org is taken down because the sites allow "hate speech" to be posted.

    We can fine an endless supply of "hateful" speech, even speech calling for violence on the left, too. The KKK has no monopoly on that.

    Black Lives Matter protester: 'Only good white man is a dead white man'.

    New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose leaders are known for anti-Semitic and anti-white tirades. Its late chairman, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, famously remarked: “There are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”

    Though she opposed [a proposed Constitutional anti-gay-marriage amendment], [Clinton] said that she believed that marriage was "a sacred bond between a man and a woman" and she took "umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman." [Pretty hateful words, by today's LGBTTTQQIAA... standards].

    "White folks was in caves while we were building empires. We taught philosophy and astrology [sic] and mathematics before Socrates and those Greek homos ever got around to it." Al Sharpton [A gay slur, a nationalist slur, and a racist comment, all in one!]

    You cannot define "hate" speech to just include white-supremacist or other speech you disagree with. Because if you do, when power shifts or something bad happens, your speech is next. We didn't go and shut down any of the sites that James Hodgkinson was active on, and if Trump and the right had tried to do so, the media would--correctly, for once--said that would be wrong and a violation of free speech rights. We didn't go and shut down the mosque where Omar Mateen's anti-gay views were stoked by his religious indoctrination. It would have been wrong.

    When the KKK and Nazi's want to expose themselves and their idiotic and repugnant ideas, it's not a good idea to create martyrs-to-the-cause of any of them nor answer them with violence. That just feeds them.

    1. Re:If you're cheering this by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Speaking of breaking laws is perfectly fine, no matter how much others disagree with it. Actually breaking the law is not.
      If what you want to do would be illegal, try and change the law to make it legal but do not act it until it is so.

      Assuming this site was an integral part to inciting these murders, the question is whether that is legal or not.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:If you're cheering this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"White folks was in caves while we were building empires" :) :) Yes exactly building empires : ) : )

      Mule be sorry: Fifteen teens get RABIES after gang raping donkey

      FIFTEEN asinine youths are reportedly being treated for rabies after they caught the deadly disease.
      http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/637761/rabies-donkey-sex-sidi-kamel-morocco-mechraa-belksiri-arkansas-united-states

      The teens, from Sidi Kamel in Morocco, were taken to hospital after the infection was passed on from the beast.

      According to Morocco World News the disturbing event left the youngsters’ families in “distress and horror”.

      The warped lads stayed at the Mechraa Belksiri Hospital for one week where they were treated in a bid to stop the disease from spreading.

    3. Re:If you're cheering this by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      action and google's and godaddy's, etc. just remember your position on this when GoHillary.com or BlackLivesMatter.org is taken down because the sites allow "hate speech" to be posted.

      Goes far beyond this. The "antifascist" parade has wanted to go after Thomas Jefferson for a while now. This is the shit you're supporting when you think that removing those statues is a good idea, when blocking speech because it hurts your feelings. The slippery slope is already in action, and I can't wait to see the people trying to justify this. Yep, we're entering that new shiny era of antifascism already, where antifascists are the actual fascists and it escapes them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    4. Re:If you're cheering this by apoc.famine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First they came for the Nazis, and I did not speak out, for I was not a Nazi.....
       
      Look dude, you may have missed this in history class, but 70ish years ago the world got together and waged outright war on fascists. Like, million man armies, naval armadas, giant fleets of bombers, all leading up to nuclear weapons to stop the fascists. Why? Because fascism is them or us. There is no live and let live with fascists, unless you happen to be a Christian Aryan male.
       
      So please, fuck off with the "omg, poor fascists don't get a platform" and "but the black/liberal/cucks are violent too" shit. Fascist hate speech doesn't get free speech rights. We had this debate during WWII, and the world decided that we're not doing Fascism. You may be sympathetic to fascist speech, and you may be a racist asshole, but the debate on this is well over. Nazis are bad, and we're not helping you support and promote that ideology, end of discussion.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    5. Re:If you're cheering this by penandpaper · · Score: 1

      inciting these murders, the question is whether that is legal or not.

      First, the guy hasn't' had his trial yet and innocent until proven guilty. The mob rule is a rule and tyrannical rule. Let him have his day in court and if convicted throw the book at him and throw him in a bottomless pit of hell for all I care.

      We really need to put to forebear what we value in society. Government won't be far behind this wave of censorship and selective law enforcement as we have seen in Berkeley and Charlottsville. With a complicit government allowing mob rule, it doesn't matter whose boot is on your neck. Do we value free speech as a society? Then all members should work to protect it for all citizens. Do we value the right of trial and innocence until proven guilty? Then we should not be worked up in a mob and condemn someone until they have had their day in court.

      If it was illegal then let the government enforce the law equally.

    6. Re:If you're cheering this by mpercy · · Score: 2

      Right, because my comment "When the KKK and Nazi's want to expose themselves and their idiotic and repugnant ideas, it's not a good idea to create martyrs-to-the-cause of any of them nor answer them with violence. That just feeds them." so clearly screams "I'm a Nazi supporter!".

      When white people chant "Kill the blacks!" it's wrong.
      When black people chant "Kill the whites!" it's exactly the same kind of wrong.

      You can pretend it's different somehow, I suppose.

      And way to ignore the main point. We're already seeing liberal groups eating their own intersectionalities, like when the Chicago gay pride march refused to let Jewish gays march with their Star-of-David rainbow flags because it might offend some of the Palestinian gays. I'd be willing to bet that the gays affected by this anti-Semitic action would normally have supported someone being banned from a parade for their "offensive" ideas--and then it happened to them and they were undoubtedly stunned by the turn of events.

      One marcher, Laurel Grauer, said she was harassed by other Dyke March attendees before being told she needed to leave with her flag.

      “It was a flag from my congregation which celebrates my queer, Jewish identity which I have done for over a decade marching in the Dyke March with the same flag," she told Windy City Times.

      “They were telling me to leave because my flag was a trigger to people that they found offensive,” she added. “Prior to this [march] I had never been harassed or asked to leave and I had always carried the flag with me.”

      The organizers of the march told the Times the event was a pro-Palestinian and anti-Zionist one and that the flags made people feel unsafe.

    7. Re:If you're cheering this by apoc.famine · · Score: 2

      So, "Nazis are bad" is really hard for you to understand, eh? You're going through a lot of trouble to demonize a lot of other groups and equate them with Nazis, and it's quite telling. They are not the same. Not in the least. Do you not get how disingenuous it is to try to lump non-fascist groups in with actual fascists? Do you not understand what WWII was all about?
       
      Bringing up a squabble about someone bring a flag to a parade in the same context as actual white nationalists advocating the expulsion of non-whites from the country is about as stupid as it gets. That's the sort of shit that got tens of millions of people killed the last time it happened. Arguing about bringing a flag to a parade did not.
       
      I'm not pretending it's something different - it is different. That you seem to not understand this is frightening.
       
      Fascism and Nazis are bad. We've decided this. If you do not really understand what these groups are and why they are bad, you really need a history lesson. Stop trying to say non-fascist things are fascist because you personally don't like them. That's not how this works.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    8. Re:If you're cheering this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You seem to be using Orwell's definition of Fascism. What say we do some minimal word replacement in your rant and see if we can find a version that is coherent and sensible.

      Look dude, you may have missed this in history class, but 900ish, 750ish, 500ish and 300ish years ago the world got together and waged outright war on islamists. Like, million man armies, naval armadas to stop the islamists. Why? Because islamism is them or us. There is no live and let live with islamists, unless you happen to be a Muslim.

      Also, LOL, you went full retard at the end. Never go full retard, no matter what your professors tell you.

      ...unless you happen to be a Christian Aryan male.

    9. Re:If you're cheering this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Plenty the same ... Nazis killed a few million jews. Those traitor jews had attacked Germany society in 1920 and were getting payback --- a harsh one. OTOH kommi jews grabbing power in Russia butchered 20,000,000 farm-type Catholic Slavs. Pushing and shoving I'd save the Slavs and butcher the jews. Any questions ? Ask any time ...

    10. Re:If you're cheering this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You cannot define "hate" speech to just include white-supremacist or other speech you disagree with. Because if you do, when power shifts or something bad happens, your speech is next.

      The power will never be allowed to 'shift' once we on the Left finally seize it absolutely. We will simply imprison or kill anyone we even suspect might be thinking of opposing us. The problem with past Leftist regimes is that they could not monitor and control individuals with enough fine-grained detail, nuance, and totality. Modern technology is changing all that. With tech we can cast the opposition into a digital black hole where nobody can hear their views and we can monitor & control almost every detail of their lives through data collection and analysis. With AI combined with the masses of data collected, we will have 'Pre-Crime' abilities to eliminate anyone who opposes our rule before they even know they *are* the opposition!

    11. Re:If you're cheering this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said.

      You're not free unless you're free to be wrong. These sorts of Orwellian censorship methods that are cloaked in "hate speech" (there IS no such thing as "hate" speech. Words HAVE no agency) and are applauded by the very people that bristle when their pet causes are considered terrorism. They are quick to say "you can't blame the movement for a small representation of it." (Unless it's Neo-Nazis, I guess.) And no, I find them as repugnant as BLM, the Nation of Islam, Islam in general, and NBPP. They can all go fuck themselves with a cactus. But while they're doing it, they can spout their shit as much as they want. That's why we're as free as we are (for now.)

    12. Re:If you're cheering this by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      New Black Panther Party (NBPP), whose leaders are known for anti-Semitic and anti-white tirades. Its late chairman, Khalid Abdul Muhammad, famously remarked: “There are no good crackers, and if you find one, kill him before he changes.”

      What on Earth makes you think the same people who "cheer" this action wouldn't support the same thing for a site that espouses the hateful things mentioned above? Why are you alt-right weirdos such ... weirdos? You draw the most bizarre conclusions, ones I can't even imagine a kindergartener making.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    13. Re:If you're cheering this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who equate Antifa to Nazis are Nazis.

      Thanks for playing.

    14. Re:If you're cheering this by Glarimore · · Score: 1

      You've spent two posts completely ignoring what the person you responded to actually wrote, while also attributing beliefs and statements to them that they don't hold and didn't make. I have no clue how/why you've been modded up. I'm also a little surprised your User ID is 1m. You clearly have an axe to grind, and we try to stay away from hyperbole here.

    15. Re:If you're cheering this by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      The GP said,

      You cannot define "hate" speech to just include white-supremacist or other speech you disagree with.

      And I believe that I've pointed out how yes, fascist speech is one of those things you can just include on the "no, don't fucking do that" list. It's not a gray area. That's over the red line. We lost tens of millions of people the last time we allowed fascism to spread. That's plenty of evidence to say, "No, not again."
       
      To equate something that destructive to the entire goddamn world to people fighting to reduce police brutality or fighting AGAINST that destructive force is nonsense. You'll note that the GP included a lot of quotes of people espousing hate. I don't disagree with the GP there. But what you can't equate are the actions of those people with the actions of fascists. You can't equate the goals of those people with the goals of fascists. If you, like the GP don't get that, I don't know what to say.
       
      Are tens of millions of people dead the last time we let fascism take off not enough evidence that it's a bad thing? How do you not understand that Nazis are bad, and bad in a way that is not remotely similar to any of the other people or groups the GP mentioned? The last time we had fascism, we got genocide. The current fascists are proudly hoisting the symbols of that fascist regime, and espousing beliefs that are not yet quite genocide. Just like the last group of fascists.
       
      As far as I'm aware, BLM has not a) advocated for genocide, b) have previously committed genocide, c) caused tens of millions of deaths around the world, or d) proudly displayed the symbols of the regime that once did that. Criticize them all you want, but don't equate them to Nazis, because they aren't remotely similar. But you know who are similar to the Nazis? Neo-Nazis. White Nationalists. White Power groups. You know, those groups that seem to be making up more and more of the Alt-Right as time goes on.
       
      You claim I have an axe to grind, and yes, yes I do. With fascists. But it's clear that the GP has one with African-Americans, and he's dishonest enough to try to tie them to Nazis. It's sort-of mind-blowing how crazy that is.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    16. Re:If you're cheering this by mpercy · · Score: 1

      Al Sharpton: "I have no problem with Khalid Abdul Muhammad. My problem is with Giuliani. It is not Khalid who is talking hate. It's Rudy Giuliani."

      A little while after that, he's a keynote speaker at the Democratic National Convention.

    17. Re:If you're cheering this by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You cannot define "hate" speech to just include white-supremacist or other speech you disagree with.

      No one is. None of these sites are being shut down because some isolated member posts hate speech. Isolated quotes being precisely what your entire argument is premised on.

      e.g. What a random person posts on BLM's website is irrelevant. What BLM's collective opinion is matters in this context, and they have never advocated violence against whites, even though one of their founding members has said so on a personal level.

      You need to learn the difference between "hate speech" and "hate group". No one is being banned for the former.

    18. Re:If you're cheering this by Cederic · · Score: 1

      You claim I have an axe to grind, and yes, yes I do. With fascists. But it's clear that the GP has one with African-Americans, and he's dishonest enough to try to tie them to Nazis. It's sort-of mind-blowing how crazy that is.

      I think you're misinterpreting him. Let me put this simply for you:
      mpercy is saying if if "kill all black people" is hate speech then "kill all white people" is also hate speech.

      Do you agree or disagree? That's the basic question, and it would be lovely if you could answer that without ranting about fascists because both statements sound pretty fascist to me.

    19. Re:If you're cheering this by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Congratulations on a magnificent deflection! You deserve a nice Nazi salute for that one!
       
      You and the GP are all excited to play word-police, and try to draw parallels between fascists and black people. No, they don't sound equally fascist. If they do, it's because you apparently don't even know what a fascist is. Please, go educate yourself.
       
      There are armed Nazi stormtroopers, carrying torches, chanting Nazi slogans, intimidating and assaulting people, and you want to play word police? "Blood and Soil" and "A lot of people are going to die here before we're done" lead to at least one death and a pile of injuries.
       
      I'm not playing word police. This is about fascism. This is what fascism is, and what it does. What was crushed by our grandparents so many years ago is back, and it needs to be crushed again. If you want to be a racist and try to tie blacks to Nazis, congrats, you're part of the problem. Fascism is not about just saying shit that might be hateful. It's about state sponsored nationalism, and acting on those fascist beliefs. Just like we saw this past week. When intimidation and assault violate civil rights, we're not talking about hate speech anymore. And when the head of state comes out and can't really condemn that, it's scary as hell.
       
      If a cornerstone of BLM was "kill all the white people", you still wouldn't have a point. The point of fascism is to drive change within the current political structure to support that nationalism. And not only are BLM not saying, "kill all the white people", they definitely aren't arguing that they should be taking over the political system to make that happen. So you and the GP, please stop being racist as fuck and tying black protest groups to fascists. It would be one tiny step forward towards solving some of our current problems.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    20. Re:If you're cheering this by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'm not playing word police either. I'm merely noticing that you are incapable of condemning anti-white speech.

      I haven't mentioned BLM, I haven't mentioned Nazis, I haven't mentioned anything other than you and your hypocrisy.

      Let me show you how it's done:
      "kill all blacks" is hate speech and should be countered.
      "kill all whites" is hate speech and should be countered.

      There, see how easy that is? Well, for people that aren't rabidly racist anyway.

    21. Re:If you're cheering this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      They were advocating violence against Thomas Jefferson? The cads! Wordpress should ban them for advocating violence.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    22. Re:If you're cheering this by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      While I completely agree with what you actually wrote about hate speech, I keep seeing people arguing that large swaths of people perform hate speech when only some of them do.

      Nazis are fond of hate speech and often use it. Republicans in general, and right-wing folk in general, say a lot of things I strongly disagree with and contribute to campaigns against There's a real difference there, and some people ignore it. By observation, some of these people are on the right politically, and some are on the left. Too many right-wing people on Slashdot have been ignoring the distinction, and that poisons discussions like these.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:If you're cheering this by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing people arguing that large swaths of people perform hate speech when only some of them do.

      I agree, but that's why I wanted to dig deeper here. I have this painful addiction to fairness that dislikes people demonstrating a clear bias without acknowledging it and the excuse "not all ..." is being used to avoid applying the same rules and responses to hate speech depending on who the hate speech comes from.

      So in the same way I occasionally succumb and respond to the anti-semetic trolls on Slashdot, I occasionally call out the hypocrisy that people aren't acknowledging. In this instance I took the speech away from the context of the groups and individuals involved so that the 'not all ...' objection ceased to be relevant and.. well, still waiting for a response.

    24. Re:If you're cheering this by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      Why would I be condemning anti-white speech, in a thread about neo-Nazi websites being forced offline after neo-Nazis assaulted a bunch of people and killed someone? That's what you seem to happily be ignoring, in the most hamfisted racist way.
       
      We just had fucking Nazis with torches marching through a US city, bearing arms. Those Nazis called for the expulsion of non-Whites and people of religions they disagree with from the country. They chanted Nazi slogans, made comments about killing minorities, assaulted a bunch of people, and ultimately killed someone.
       
      Nazis.
       
      In the fucking USA, which beat those fascists bastards back early last century.
       
      And after actual armed Nazis marched through a town assaulting people and calling for the rise of white nationalism, you and the GP are more concerned with some insensitive things some black protesters said?
       
      Fuck you guys. If what happened this week isn't a bigger problem in your eyes, than you are just racist motherfuckers. You should be glad my grandpa is long dead, because he was damn proud of killing Nazis, and you and the rest would likely be on his "don't give a fuck at my age" list.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    25. Re:If you're cheering this by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fuck you guys. If what happened this week isn't a bigger problem in your eyes, than you are just racist motherfuckers. You should be glad my grandpa is long dead, because he was damn proud of killing Nazis, and you and the rest would likely be on his "don't give a fuck at my age" list.

      So to recap:
      - you refuse to condemn anti-white hate speech
      - I condemn anti-black and anti-white hate speech
      - you accuse me of racism
      - you follow it up with a "my grandfather would kill you for being a nazi"

      I think it's clear who the racist fuckwit in this conversation is.

  25. Re:Fascist by pots · · Score: 2
    Fascism is much more than an economic model, and claiming that it has nothing to do with Nazis is a little ridiculous. Hitler explicitly supported fascism and described the Nazis in those terms. So fascism has that to do with the Nazis.

    As for Trump... He hasn't explicitly said that he supports or admires fascism, but he's spoken often about how much he admires leaders and systems which function in a similar way.

    I'll just quote from the wikipedia definition, to save you some clicks:

    Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[8] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[8] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[9][10][11][12] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.

  26. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Troll now means "anyone who disagrees with me".

  27. I might've done the same... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you're getting attacked you can't just "sit there & take it" - especially when police shirked their duty (& the "following orders to stand down", especially to NOT DO YOUR JOB & UPHOLD THE LAW + TO STOP VIOLENCE nipping it in the bud, ARE THE TRUE WRONGDOERS).

    It's truly LIVE or DIE then. Ever been there? I have.

    I grew up (thru late teen years to present other than traveling nationwide for work thru my 20's & 30's) in a city full of violence & it IS that way... you either "fight or flight" it or die. I've had gangs try rob me (they ended up in the hospital) & yes, it IS exactly what I say it is here...

    In this case, the antifa idiots or whitepower fools took bats/bricks etc. to his car & he tore outta there.

    Wouldn't you have done the same?

    Heck, I KNOW I would have (not meaning to kill anyone but rather to STAY ALIVE). I wouldn't have tried to KILL anyone intentionally for no reason. I doubt he did also (unless he's outright whacked in the head).

    APK

    P.S.=> The TRUE wrongdoer is the one giving the order for the LAW to 'stand down' & yes, police have done wrong there for following those orders (sure, it's your job on the line - I understand that - which means your livelyhood & possibly your family too) but when you take oaths to uphold the law & STOP TROUBLE (especially before it can start)? YOU have done wrong ... apk

    1. Re:I might've done the same... apk by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you have done the same?

      Not unless the mob actually succeeded in gaining access to the inside of my car.

    2. Re:I might've done the same... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone has the combat hardened, highly trained nerves of steel you think you do. You're that guy that always thinks, "I got this."
      I say, 'think,' because I call bs on your assertion you could keep it cool while surrounded by people intent on your murder, swinging bats and breaking windows.
      If they are inside, then it's already too late. Once inside, the mob has access to do even more grievous bodily harm.

    3. Re:I might've done the same... apk by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Call BS all you want. It's meaningless because you have no idea what my background or personal experiences are.

      If they are inside, then it's already too late.

      Not hardly. If someone is climbing through a broken car window, it's pretty hard to swing a bat or a fist. Especially if the car is accelerating.

      Once inside, the mob has access to do even more grievous bodily harm.

      Even more? A mob cannot do you grievous bodily harm from outside the car unless they're tipping it over. So there's no "even more" about it.

    4. Re:I might've done the same... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Call BS all you want. It's meaningless because you have no idea what my background or personal experiences are.

      If they are inside, then it's already too late.

      Not hardly. If someone is climbing through a broken car window, it's pretty hard to swing a bat or a fist. Especially if the car is accelerating.

      Why climb through the window? After breaking the window, the next step is opening the door. So you are saying you would possibly have done the same thing in Charlottesville, except at a later point in time.

      Once inside, the mob has access to do even more grievous bodily harm.

      Even more? A mob cannot do you grievous bodily harm from outside the car unless they're tipping it over. So there's no "even more" about it.

      Tipping a car over is trivial. It would only take 5 or so average men to do that. There were many more than that around the car. I've even done smaller vehicles by myself.

    5. Re:I might've done the same... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is ok APK we know you are a terrified child who views everyone who doesn't sing your praises (are there any) as a threat.
      You are just a keyboard warrior internet tough guy who is known to make shit up and would piss themselves if ever faced with real danger.

  28. hypocrisy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bakeries owned by religious people are forced by law to accommodate anyone for any reason

    Webhosts can discriminate because MUH T.O.S.

    What bullshit.

    1. Re:hypocrisy by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Bakeries owned by religious people are forced by law to accommodate anyone for any reason

      This is absolutely untrue.

  29. Censorship irony by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An ironic down vote to hide the comment? Yet its a AC comment, and thus 0 so most people wouldn't see it.

    Yet its likely a correct prediction:

    1. Trump will grant a pardon to the Charlottesville killer.
    2. Hannity will coordinate PR to present the killer as the victim.

    1. Re:Censorship irony by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      I cruise at -1 just to keep an eye out for the crazies^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ACs and bottom dwellers. It's painful sometimes.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  30. Re:Fascist by cryptizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Looks pretty peaceful to me. Nobody ran him over with a car. In fact, he was completely unharmed. Isn't this the kind of protest you spend hours on here defending?

  31. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking where free speech away?

  32. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by rickb928 · · Score: 2, Informative

    As if you have a choice. The Alt-Left opens your wallet for you. And your children are theirs, your media, your employer, your barista, everyone you interact with all the time, everywhere, that doesn't think for themselves.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  33. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Informative

    I expect a bit of both.
    First there is an acknowledgement that these groups are more then just a random ranting hicks. But groups trying to push a well crafted narrative of fear that giving others equal rights will diminish their own rights, and hatred of the groups who are getting such rights and trying to show that they are not worth it. It is the responsibility of everyone to stand up against this groups in one way or an other. These groups use the same methods and logic that had created much of the foreign terrorist groups, and their growth to a point where they had destroyed countries came from a population that more or less just let it slide. Racism really has no place in business, as all it does it reduce your customer base and partners to work with.

    Then there is a PR problem of being considered friendly to this group, this will attract more undesirables to your service, and effect your general perception. It could be like the Simpsons quote "Not Raciest but #1 with racist)

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  34. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please stop associating fascists with Nazis. I'm a fascist (am the president of my student fascist club) and I can't stand Nazis.

    The confederacy also wasn't fascist in any form whatsoever so I'm not sure what that or Robert E Lee has to do with any of this.

  35. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right! That's completely different than opening the wallets of every American to bail out the Banking Industry.

    Thanks Republicans, for being SOOOOOOO smart that you don't need my money! Oh, wait...

  36. Re:Fascist by TimothyHollins · · Score: 1

    That certainly shows the other side in a less forgiving light.
    But let's not pretend that all those who wish to keep the statues around are angels that only care about honoring their ancestors.
    And let's not pretend that this video is the standard chain of events. The whole reason we have this news post from the beginning is that someone decided those protests were worth killing over.

  37. Advocacy or Practice of Violence by jimbrooking · · Score: 1

    IANAL but perhaps someone who is versed in such matters can explain why, in light of their behavior, writings and speech, Americal neo-nazis and other groups bonded by hatred are not subject to this law (Link to Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute - https://www.law.cornell.edu/us... ).

    Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or

    Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so

    ....

    It certainly seems to me that the frenzied acts and utterances by these thugs is as much a threat to the nation as yelling "Fire" in a theater, which I think is not covered by the First Amendment right of free speech.

    1. Re:Advocacy or Practice of Violence by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      Because, that is not what they are doing.

      They are mostly calling for whites to self-segregate by building their own communities.

      A move that I support, because I hate living around idiots. (Really, people. Why would we care if the slugs moved out into the country, where they could be safely ignored?)

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  38. Re:Fascist by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Socialism is an economic model, enforced by violence.

    Men with guns.

    Please try to be consistent. Only a 'free market' could be considered a purely economic model, and then only if the State retrains itself and leaves the market alone. Fascism, Socialism, etc all rely on the State to force conditions.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  39. Tried and convicted - in the media by bradley13 · · Score: 1

    I have no idea what happened with this guy and his car in Charlottesville. But then, no one else really does either. So it's really kind of sad to see the continual press coverage about how he deliberately search out left-wing protesters in order to run them down. This is what the press says, and what their video clips seem to show.

    However, lots of people captured the event on their phones and other videos are circulating that support a different interpretation: the guy drove his car down a road he shouldn't have - stupidity, accident, who knows - and was swarmed by protesters. In this interpretation, he did what you are supposed to do: never stop, keep driving no matter what.

    Which interpretation is right? I have no idea. The point is: neither does anyone else other that the driver himself. He deserves his day in court, and I wish /. and the rest of the Internet would let him have it.

    --
    Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
    1. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In this interpretation, he did what you are supposed to do: never stop, keep driving no matter what.

      No. No it isn't. Not even close. In no scenario are you supposed to respond to a group of people blocking your path by running them over.

      Deliberately running people over is called "Murder".

    2. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by PoopJuggler · · Score: 2

      he did what you are supposed to do: never stop, keep driving no matter what

      That's the stupidest thing I've read all week, and this has been a pretty good week for stupidity.

    3. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Florida, if you get hit by a vehicle and your not IN the crosswalk, they call it suicide.

      Standing in the road protesting...Total lack of sense...Nothing common about it!

      Rev "AL" and Rev "Jackson" are two of the most racist people on earth.
      Please don't say anything bad about BLM or they will burn down the town.

    4. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he did what you are supposed to do: never stop, keep driving no matter what

      That's the stupidest thing I've read all week, and this has been a pretty good week for stupidity.

      Yeah we all saw how stopping worked out for Reginald Denny in '92. I'd be trying to get out of the situation, but I wouldn't be stopping to get my ass beat by a mob.

    5. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      You aren't going to get very far with this argument, too many people know what happens when you stop.

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    6. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

      Try using that defense at a school crossing and you get life in prison.

      --
      I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    7. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The police shoot you? That's what's happened to too many people pulled over for DWB.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:Tried and convicted - in the media by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      I'm just going to leave this here...

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
  40. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically Robert E Lee wasn't a supporter of slavery. He was a soldier who was called to duty. If he was actually ideologically invested in the South they probably would have won the Civic War because he was a brilliant general.

    There are probably other statues they can be pulling down. Pulling down Robert E Lee statues really doesn't make sense.

  41. Re: Fascist by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Speak for yourself, AC.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  42. Re:Fascist by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    The only people that can't cope with multiple political parties are liberals that assume that anyone that doesn't follow their group think is some kind of Nazi.

    The entire media narrative surrounding this event distils down to nothing more than that.

    You either support the absurd whitewash being perpetrated by Reb state politicians or you're a Klansman.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  43. To do that you have to stop George Soros by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: George Soros IS the source of their backing (he backs TONS of groups like BLM, Antifa etc.). Nip HIM in the bud, you nip them in the bud.

    * Don't believe me? Look into him... He is a sociopath of the HIGHEST order & on MANY fronts!

    (So much so, he sold his own fellow jews into the clutches of Hitler & has said he is a "god"...)

    APK

    P.S.=> That lunatic is the source... apk

  44. "Charlottesville Killer" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So 'the media' is throwing around descriptions like "the Charlottesville Killer" while ignoring the evidence. Why am I not surprised by this sensationalist yellow journalism?

    There is video evidence of this guy being attacked with bats. This was not premeditated murder. This was not a "car of peace" as we're been seeing in various European countries. This was a panic reaction to being cornered and any judge and jury will see that. At best, he'll get a manslaughter charge.

    But hey, the internet is already martyring this dead leftist as an excuse to turn this situation into Gamergate 2.0. You remember that, don't you? Where we were shown exactly how far leftist reach had gotten when suddenly, websites that have been ideologically and culturally opposed suddenly united against these "evil sexist bigoted" blah blah blah gamers in response.
    Moderation suddenly ratcheted up in places where it was already bad and moderators were replaced in places that had classically been run under a "Wild West" model (looking at you 4chan), houses were cleaned, entire swathes of communities were removed.

  45. White genocide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So you all believe that white people, and ONLY white people, don't have the right to have their own countries, and to simply HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH other races - and therefore no ability to harm them in any way. And you also believe that non-whites HAVE to live around white people in order to somehow get 'a better life', and that the prospect of all non-whites simply living around their own kind is dreadful.

    Please explain.

    1. Re:White genocide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where "You" mean Western Europe + USA, shortly West!

    2. Re:White genocide by JohnFen · · Score: 0

      So you all believe that white people, and ONLY white people, don't have the right to have their own countries, and to simply HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH other races - and therefore no ability to harm them in any way.

      I don't believe that. Such people certainly have the right to have their own country and make it as racist as they wish. What they don't have the right to do is steal mine and transform it into that.

    3. Re:White genocide by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why would you think anyone intelligent would believe that? Races don't have the right to form their own countries, unless a group can find unclaimed land and form a country (Sealand being the most successful example I'm aware of). Nazis aren't just talking about forming a white community and ignoring everyone else, by and large, but advocating removing large classes of people they don't like from the country, one way or another. I don't see anybody saying non-whites need to live around white people, and many don't. However, in this country, rich areas with good facilities tend to have a lot of whites in them, and lots of people understandably want to live there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  46. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    alt-left is a term invented by you nazis to try to equate your evil with people who just want to live their lives.

  47. Re:This is a witch-hunt. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if someone could kill hate, I'd support them

  48. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 2

    Looks pretty peaceful to me. ... Isn't this the kind of protest you spend hours on here defending?

    You mean the part where people were yelling, getting right into his face is peaceful? No wonder you're perfectly fine with this as they are.

    So, since we're convicting without a trial. I'm sure that you're going to be shaming those anti-confederate protesters for their violence right? After all, holding you to your standard: Words are violence.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  49. change of venue by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    change of venue

  50. Re:censorship is discrimination and we need to dra by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    "He can simply run his own website,"

    Like The Daily Stormer', right?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  51. Free Enterprise by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

    Start your own nazi web host. Im sure you will get the best sort of investors.

  52. Re:Fascist by cryptizard · · Score: 2

    If they actually threatened violence against him, yeah I am fine with them being arrested. What I saw in the video was mostly them saying "go home terrorist" and "fuck you" a lot. Again, I am fine with equal treatment for both sides, you are the one that is not. You pretend that "fuck you" is the same as "all jews should die and here is how it should be done." You are the one equating yelling in someone's face with running them over with a car. One is not like the other.

  53. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    That certainly shows the other side in a less forgiving light. ... And let's not pretend that this video is the standard chain of events. The whole reason we have this news post from the beginning is that someone decided those protests were worth killing over.

    Go watch any protest at the start where there is some "anti" group protesting and you'll see something similar. Hell even Jordan Peterson experienced in Toronto when he was speaking in public. This isn't an uncommon occurrence by the left, it's standard operating procedure. That was Canada. This is in the US, and you can find plenty of other examples.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  54. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ahh that old "taxes are as bad as white supremacy and vehicular homicide" chestnut.

  55. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But groups trying to push a well crafted narrative

    Lets be fair here. They're definitely trying to push a narrative, but to call it well crafted is giving them a bit too much credit.

  56. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    You pretend that "fuck you" is the same as "all jews should die and here is how it should be done." You are the one equating yelling in someone's face with running them over with a car. One is not like the other.

    I'm holding you to your standard.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  57. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in your case, "trolls" seems to mean "people who live in reality".

  58. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Maritz · · Score: 0

    You guys are doing a shit job of taking over. Say what you want about the nazis, at least they were fucking competent. Look at Trump. Doesn't exactly scream competence does he?

    To be honest, it relaxes me no end to see how fucking hopeless most of the alt-right are as human beings. Lots of bleating, but fuck all else. Long may it continue.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  59. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But a site saying the rich jews are putting the working man down is not on the same level. That is covered free speech.

    No, it's not. It's the very definition of hateful antisemitism, and it must be stopped.

  60. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Maritz · · Score: 1

    As if you have a choice. The Alt-Left opens your wallet for you. And your children are theirs, your media, your employer, your barista, everyone you interact with all the time, everywhere, that doesn't think for themselves.

    Mmm, immigrants and globalism are the root of all the world's problems, "alt-right" surely is a bastion of independent thought.

    --
    I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
  61. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look at their supporters. It doesn't need to be well crafted. In fact, if it was well crafted they wouldn't be able to fucking keep up.

    N*ggers, jews and women are taking your stuff. That's the 'narrative'.

  62. getting a fair jury trail may be hard and the last by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    getting a fair jury trail may be hard and the last thing we need to do is take that right away from him!

  63. Re:Fascist by GLMDesigns · · Score: 1

    That is not flamebait. It's the truth. The more idiots call everything they don't like to be fascist the more that word is diluted to the point of irrelevancy. The OP is correct. Fascism is primarily an economic model. Nazism adds race to the equation.

    --
    If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
    Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
  64. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Maybe I should just open my wallet for you and avoid the violence?

    Your sense of humor went missing. I suggest buying a pair of poopy glasses to bring it back.

  65. Agreed, 110%... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Odd how it's being ignored he was attacked in his vehicle by bats/rocks! I would have done the same (I know it) & tore out to survive... I've had to do similar things when attacked by a black gang attempting to rob me (except I couldn't run, I had to put them into the hospital, 1 by 1 - no joke, no b.s.).

    In that case, there were no police & I had to phone to call them or wait for them to show up. It was LIVE, or DIE.

    * Personally, unless this guy in that car was outright a loon, I doubt he wanted to kill anyone (might as well kill yourself then because you would be heading to imprisonment etc. for murder).

    George Soros is another "root cause" here. HE funds groups like antifa, BLM, etc. thru many of his 'foundations' like Open Society etc. - get to him, put HIM outta business? You put these groups outta business too.

    APK

    P.S.=> The TRUE problems here? Police being told to "stand down" & laughing as reporters were pepper sprayed (even telling the reporters from InfoWars they were TOLD to ignore it all - wtf IS YOUR JOB THEN? It's to keep peace, not allow chaos)...

    Whoever gave police that order to 'stand down' IS ESPECIALLY @ FAULT! apk

  66. Re:Fascist by xvan · · Score: 1

    Iv'e seen some videos from a different angle that may tell a different story.

    The is a possibility that the car was hit first after which the driver made a stupid maneuver and rolled (slowly) over somebody. Then a mob surrounded him so he panicked and escaped.

    The images aren't that clear, and even if true that doesn't excuse the driver, but it how how what you consider "peaceful protesting" may spiral out of control.

  67. Re:Fascist by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    But in your case, "trolls" seems to mean "people who live in reality".

    You mean a reality where it's OKAY to create false accounts, post dick pics and re-post personal information from public records?

  68. The only thing APK takes is moose dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only thing APK takes is moose dick

    Now go worship your orange hobgoblin Trump

  69. Free speech has no limits by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lefties seem unable to understand this.

  70. Re:A good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Somebody should ban whitehouse.gov because there's a Nazi living in there and I don't mean Steve Bannon'

    Indeed. There are many white (house) supremacists in there.

  71. APK is attacked by moose dick nightly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me guess you were being attacked violently by that moose dick so the only thing you could do was attempt to swallow it.

  72. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beating and attacking conservatives is very popular now. These corporations are just trying to get free publicity.

  73. Re:A good start by ScentCone · · Score: 1

    Who, that guy who condemned Nazis and white nationalists? Yeah, he is such a Nazi. You can always tell the Nazis because of how they condemn Nazis - dead giveaway!

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
  74. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you describing the protesters or the anti-protesters though?

    Because both sides are acting quite authoritarian, after all, we've got google, godaddy, kickstarter, gofundme and now wordpress dictating what is and is not allowed to be said. You may agree with them, but it's still very authoritarian. Cloudfare is the only one not taking an authoritarian stance. And as for supremacist, well, you can't very well be authoritarian without being supremacist, can you? After all you're espousing that your view is correct while theirs is wrong. As for nationalist, most of what's being done isn't particularly being done in the name of a nation. More ideologies. When I think nationalist, I see a government needing to be involved. Nazi Germany, Communist Russia, McCarthy era United States, these are nationalists. Neither side is being particularly nationalist. "Trump supporters" as in the meme that is the lefts view of a Trump supporter, not the actual reality of a Trump supporter, I would call nationalist. None of the folks involved in this spat are particularly nationalist.

  75. Re:Fascist by cryptizard · · Score: 1

    Yep I don't agree with that, sounds pretty dumb. Next?

  76. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. Attacking people for not wanting to pay even higher taxes is very hot now.

  77. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The top federal tax income rate is only 39.6% with the additional Medicare tax rate at 3.8%. That is hatefully low. The racist conservatives refuse to pay their fair share to help the poor and minorities because they are so full of hate. They should be paying much more if they weren't all racists.

  78. Where were they for the beheadings? by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    I want to know where all of these people cheering WordPress and GoDaddy were when ISIS was beheading people and posting it all over the internet. Where were these people when left wing groups were posting anti-cop rhetoric and inciting riots? Where were they when people were making movies depicting the assassination of a sitting president (not Obama)?

    1. Re: Where were they for the beheadings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want to know where all of these people cheering WordPress and GoDaddy were when ISIS was beheading people and posting it all over the internet.

      We were asking people not to spread their propaganda.

      Furthermore, we were begging for actions to be taken in Syria...besides Putin supporting a vicious dictator.

      We wanted them stopped.

      Where were these people when left wing groups were posting anti-cop rhetoric and inciting riots?

      Protesting peacefully, don't you remember?

      You spent months fervently declaring that it was all mob violence whenever somebody put up a sign, and seeking to have the issue dismissed, even ignoring the numerous reports of police corruption and malfeasance in Baltimore, Ferguson, and Chicago.

      Are you now surprised that after the police used oppressive tactics to suppress protests, that you are no more believed than the Chinese after Tiannemen or the Yorkshire police after Hillsborough? Or thevLAPD after Rampart?

      Remember that?

      Where were they when people were making movies depicting the assassination of a sitting president (not Obama)?

      Oh no, like how Genesis depicted Ronald Reagan in a mocking fashion? How DARE they! It is just like suggesting John Adams would due well to have a cannon blast him in his arse.

      But where were you when people were suing a sitting president for his birth certificate under false pretenses? Where were you when a media group was promulgating a fraud-filled false documentary about a Presidential candidate? Where were you when people were calling for Michael Moore, Al Gore, and Kevin Smith to be punished for their movies? Where were you when a sex abuser was attacking the president for adultery? Where were you when the show Game of Thrones was assailed for using a plastic head of GWB to depict some unfairly executed characters? Where were you when opposition to the Iraq wars was treated as unpatriotic?

      We had this before, you should be a card carrying member of the ACLU

    2. Re:Where were they for the beheadings? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Did Wordpress host ISIS blogs? Did GoDaddy provide DNS services to ISIS? Which leftists in particular were inciting riots (anti-cop rhetoric doesn't necessarily violate ToS) and did they use Wordpress and GoDaddy? Who cares about movies of assassinations? I've seen some before, and they didn't inspire me to get a firearm and head to showings of Our American Cousins.

      If you do know of blogs that violate Wordpress's terms of service, have you informed Wordpress? It's real easy to not notice such violations until they blow up in controversy.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  79. APK is just mad that Soros won't share moose dick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are just mad that Soros won't share his ultra premium moose dick with you so now you believe him to be a puppet master behind everything.

    By nip him in the bud I assume that is your code word for you giving Soros rim jobs nightly.

    Now go worship at your shrine to the orange hobgoblin Trump.

    We know you blame the Jews for everything, especially spooky dude.

    Don't deny that you believe that crap as we have all seen your anti Jew posts in reference to facebook and google and some how connects it to Soros.

  80. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ironically Robert E Lee wasn't a supporter of slavery. He was a soldier who was called to duty. If he was actually ideologically invested in the South they probably would have won the Civic War because he was a brilliant general.

    Ah, the myth of Lee, a good ole boy, never meaning no harm.

    But no, he was a traitor and a member of the Rebel Alliance. He rejected his duty. He turned on his country, and brought violence upon it. He only chose peace when it was forced upon him by defeat.

    Furthermore, he is known to have been cruel to slaves, both before and during the war, and the efforts to rehabilitate him are simply reflections of the Lost Causes attempt to deny their true purposes. They've been trying to deceive us about their peculiar institution since decades before the Civil War.

    Remember the Fugitive Slave Act? Used by the Southern states to compel and coerce Northern states to the point where trials and evidence were removed, and a free man could be enslaved on testimony alone.

    Remarkably similar to Trump's attempted coercion of sanctuary cities today.

    There are probably other statues they can be pulling down. Pulling down Robert E Lee statues really doesn't make sense.

    If you want to respect Bobby Lee, you will tear down the states like he would have wanted anyway. He never wanted such glorifications.

  81. Re:Fascist by penandpaper · · Score: 2

    Apparently, Jordan Peterson and Gad Saad are hosting an event and it's being protested because "anti-semitism"... Gad Saad is jewish.

    The madness doesn't end.

  82. Re: censorship is discrimination and we need to dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yup you got that right. One Internets for you. G and GD are not the only way to get DNS resolution, they did not sieze their domain, just stopped providing the service that changes that name into a set of numbers.

  83. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's completely different than opening the wallets of every American to bail out the Banking Industry. Thanks Republicans, for being SOOOOOOO smart that you don't need my money! Oh, wait...

    Before blaming that on Republicans, you should look at the facts: Democrats voted 172 to 63 in favor of the bailout, while Republicans voted 108 to 91 against it.

  84. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Whibla · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Mmm, immigrants and globalism are the root of all the world's problems

    I can't say I saw GP say that they were.

    Your sarcastic statement, however, is as patently false as the statement: Immigrants and globalism don't cause any problems.

    Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between, and trying to pretend otherwise just makes people look like ignorant fools.

  85. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Iv'e seen some videos from a different angle that may tell a different story. The is a possibility that the car was hit first after which the driver made a stupid maneuver and rolled (slowly) over somebody. Then a mob surrounded him so he panicked and escaped. The images aren't that clear, and even if true that doesn't excuse the driver, but it how how what you consider "peaceful protesting" may spiral out of control.

    I've thought for a day or so how funny it would be if he was acquitted on self defense for trying to escape from a mob. This could well be another Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman media lynch mob we are seeing. There are many who jump to conclusions without understanding any of the facts involved and are willing to punish anyone who disagrees with their verdict. He has been pronounced undeniably guilty by the media and their cheering squads based upon his philosophy and associations. People on both sides are blinded by vitriolic hatred, but only one side seems blissfully self unaware of it.

  86. The problem with this is by evolutionary · · Score: 1

    We tell the world we have free speech, yet here we are proving otherwise. To be clear, I don't like what is going on and I do believe Trump has encouraged the neo-nazis, "white pride", white supremacists and and hate groups to come out of their holes. And yes, they now have the courage to mobilize and organize (somewhat, heaven help us if they ever truly organize).

    The problem is if we respond to this with actions of fear, like suppressing opinion and speech, whether we agree or not, we turn ourselves into the likes of Putin, Xi (Chinese president) and Vajiralongkorn( king of Thailand) who instantly take measure to stop anyone saying anything they don't like, especially if it questions their authority or their policies.

    Free speech can bring all sorts of things to light, good and bad. And we have to respond to both equally: With intelligence, rationale and restraint when we disagree. If we can't do this, the efforts of those like Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr, were for naught. The ACLU has been condemned by many for defending the rights of some of these groups to speak. But those are the real defenders of American values: Whether they disagree or disagree with people, they defend our civil liberties without prejudice. So long as it's only speech, we need to be true to the values we claim demonstrate our ability to have real dialogue among our citizens and government leaders.

    The real problem with this rally was bringing weapons. The allowing of a POLITICAL (not military or mob style) is fine, but the bringing of weapons is where the line should have been drawn. (and easy enough to use politically: Police see baseball bats/shields, they get together and say "you may only proceed if you leave your 'equipment' here." A quickly improvised response unfortunately consisted mostly of people who were reacting rather than acting, and the result was baseball bats were brought by many of them as well. Trump uses this as an excuse to support the neo-nazis indirectly. This tragically lead to someone being killed. Even more tragic: There is footage that suggests that the death was not in fact a direct attack at all, but a neo-nazi who attended the rally panicking after his car was attacked by a protester a baseball bat (https://www.allenbwest.com/2017/08/14/new-shock-theory-emerges-charlottesville-drivers-motive-blowing-minds/).

    So where does this leave us: Hopefully a lesson that knee-jerk reactions, like pulling any opinions or sites from the Internet that we don't like are the wrong response. Okay, child porn, is one thing and pulling that I encourage because the actions to create such material are monstrous. But pulling political statements, even racists ones, from the Internet because we don't like or are afraid of it brings us to a lower level and long term consequences are horrifying to imagine. Basically we become fascists, whatever our good intentions. While legally people can make their own statements to not support it by showing it on the media they control, when you are a media company (including Internet) one has a great responsibility if they truly believe in the right to free speech. They must have the courage to allow what they don't like to be said, as long as the speech content itself is not created by morally or ethically questionable actions (like child porn). There was a film I remember, "To Kill A Mockingbird". Perhaps we should all review it.

    To use Benjamin Franklin's statement (and yes he didn't address it specifically for civil liberties but I think it works so...): "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety" I would substitute "Civil" for "essential", especially pertaining to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. We should try to be responsible, but we should not eliminate it when a few people use it in a way we don't agree with. (Another film "Absence of Malice" gives a good example of this.

    --
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - Einstein
    1. Re:The problem with this is by avandesande · · Score: 0

      Trump hasn't encouraged neo-nazis, it's the leftists that have made it impossible to have a middle ground conversation about immigration and security that are getting them worked up.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    2. Re:The problem with this is by Shotgun · · Score: 1

      So where does this leave us: Hopefully a lesson that knee-jerk reactions, like pulling any opinions or sites from the Internet that we don't like are the wrong response.

      Quite right, it is wrong. They should be left up so they can be mocked without mercy.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  87. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay. I see where the problem is here. let me make one little change....

    That's completely different than opening the wallets of every American to bail out the Banking Industry. Thanks CONGRESS, for being SOOOOOOO smart that you don't need my money! Oh, wait...

    You forgot to change to the global name. Simple mistake. Glad I could help.

  88. First they came for Nazis by mi · · Score: 0

    For WordPress to drop a site, even a fascist site, is a very big deal

    So, first they came for Nazis, but I didn't worry, because I am not a Nazi... You know, how it ends — only the sites approved and endorsed by ANTIFA or Black Lives Matter will be safe.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:First they came for Nazis by Ryanrule · · Score: 2

      first they came for Nazis, and i dont give a fuck, because fuck nazis. they can come for genocidal racists all they want.

    2. Re:First they came for Nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      first they came for Nazis, and i dont give a fuck, because fuck nazis.
        they can come for genocidal racists all they want.

      but when your argument is literally, "You don't agree with me on (X)? That must mean you're racist, facist, homophobe...etc." That is what makes the rest of nervous about your kind.

    3. Re:First they came for Nazis by mi · · Score: 1

      first they came for Nazis, and i dont give a fuck, because fuck nazis.

      Thank you for volunteering to be a live illustration to the point I was making.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:First they came for Nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the republican yeomanry will come for you progressive bitchboi ... watch your back ...

    5. Re:First they came for Nazis by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      you missed the second sentence.

    6. Re:First they came for Nazis by skam240 · · Score: 1

      You're basically saying "first they came for the people who were coming for people". You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who don't want to persecute minorities. Your hypocrisy is astounding.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    7. Re:First they came for Nazis by skam240 · · Score: 1

      Oops, I meant "You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who don't want to persecute minorities." as "You're using a quote meant to support minorities as a means of supporting those who want to persecute minorities."

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
    8. Re:First they came for Nazis by mi · · Score: 1

      you missed the second sentence.

      I didn't. You are saying, Freedom of Speech is not for everyone. I get it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    9. Re:First they came for Nazis by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      free speech is for everyone who is not trying to whip up some genocide.

  89. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 0

    So what's suddenly made you change your mind? The other day you were espousing that words are violence. Does that now make you a neo-nazi? After all, they have a right to speech something that you were arguing against.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  90. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by rickb928 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I'm not a member, nor do I identify with, anything alt-right. Reacting to comments with the limited vocabulary of the Left leaves you accusing everyone so dishes with you of being a fascist. That's stupid.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  91. Re:Fascist by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Let's be fair. All economic models are enforced by violence.

  92. Re: Fields has claimed allegiance to Vanguard Amer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Schwab sucks. And so do all these companies. I am so glad I don't care who is racist and who is capitalist anymore.

  93. Little Riddles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess what will happen to non-Whites when actual political correctness system will collapse, and will be no one to protect them.
    And what with some help from the East, right wing could gain the power.

  94. Re:censorship is discrimination and we need to dra by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Yes, like The Daily Stormer. Nothing is stopping them.

  95. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This video is not as open to interpretation:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    It shows him speeding into the crowd, and speeding away.

  96. You're right. G. Washington, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct, and let's not stop there. George Washington was also a traitor: he led the Colonies in rebellion against the goverment. A secessionist! AND he owned a plantation with SLAVES! Time to wipe American iconography of this piece of human garbage. Amirite?

  97. PR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > WordPress hasn't explained the shift in its approach to the website

    So it's a PR move basically

    Also *WordPress* hasn't banned anything, it couldn't: it is an Open Source piece of software that anyone can download and configure for their own needs. This intentional confusion with WordPress.COM (which is a *service provided by Automattic*), is also part of said PR move (this bit has been going on for much longer though). Educate yourself: https://wpisnotwp.com/

  98. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Or it could just be that polite society is attempting to re-exert some degree of control via social censure.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  99. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I'd say it is very well crafted towards the target audience; disaffected young white males. It has remarkable success, just look at all the crypto-fascists on /.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  100. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by MightyMartian · · Score: 1, Informative

    Who has taken their free speech away? They can find some other place to host their site. Quit conflating private entities giving these bastards the boot to some sort of state suppression. The First Amendment protects you from the state silencing you. Private actors are under no such obligation.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  101. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    The madness doesn't end.

    Of course it doesn't, and sometimes it actually get's worse. Like in this picture here(SFW). Just remember it the next time someone claims that antifa really aren't bad guys and they really are fighting fascists.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  102. Re: Fascist by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

    Ah, the myth of Lee, a good ole boy, never meaning no harm.

    But no, he was a traitor and a member of the Rebel Alliance. He rejected his duty. He turned on his country, and brought violence upon it. He only chose peace when it was forced upon him by defeat.

    Watch Ken Burns' "The Civil War" on PBS. Shelby Foote's insights are incredible. He has a trilogy of books that are wonderful too. He is(was) a master of Civil War history. One of his greatest insights was the small grammatical change that happened after the War. References to the US changed from "The United States are" to "The United States is". The US was seen as a collection of semi autonomous states. Many people felt more loyalty to their state than to the collection of states that made up the country. Lee was such a person. He resigned his commission in the U.S. Army to fight for Virginia. The Confederacy was ancillary to his loyalty.

    The marching pace of progress in modern society is much different than 1861. At that point, we were only 71 years into the experiment of a "strong" central Federal government which was not all that strong anyway. People had more loyalty and ties to their home state than we do today.

    Your "good ole boy" comment only shows your own ignorance of the facts involved. And I fail to understand at all what the Fugitive Slave Act had to do with the reputation or motivations of Lee. Are you alleging he had a hand in crafting it?

  103. Re:Fascist by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Fascism is a governing model. It isn't limited simply to economics at all.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  104. It's left-wing fascism. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Don't get me wrong, the people at the Daily Stormer are the scum of the earth. I hate them and what they stand for.

    It's just that I still remember when "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it." was the ideal to which we aspired.

    During the course of the last week, I have noticed that all kinds of people are being lumped in with Nazis, KKK and White Supremacists. For example, I don't like the idea of confederate monuments but I can understand how someone from Virginia, whose 4th great grandfather went into battle for the Confederacy might not necessarily be racist but still wants to honor his ancestor with a statue in a park.

    LK

    --
    "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    1. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by Yosho · · Score: 1

      It's just that I still remember when "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it." was the ideal to which we aspired.

      The difference here is that a private company that chooses not to let you use their platform is not denying you any rights.

      --
      Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
    2. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      It's just that I still remember when "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it." was the ideal to which we aspired.

      However, these groups do NOT feel the same way towards others. They are advocating a "white ethno-state", something that can only be achieved via genocide, murder, and totalitarianism. Giving them the freedom to march is giving them freedom to recruit. When they recruit enough, they will attempt to enact these ideas. Their ideas are not some abstract thought game, some theoretical scenario.

      Normally, I would completely agree with your statement. Yet when it comes to defending "to the death" a group of people that want me dead...maybe just kill myself so they don't have to expend the energy? Count myself lucky because I'm white, so I don't have to worry if they hit critical mass?

    3. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      The difference here is that a private company that chooses not to let you use their platform is not denying you any rights.

      Sort of...

      One is still being denied their right to free speech, it's just that when a private company does it, there's no constitutional issue.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    4. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 2

      Giving them the freedom to march is giving them freedom to recruit. When they recruit enough, they will attempt to enact these ideas. Their ideas are not some abstract thought game, some theoretical scenario.

      They should be able to march and recruit out in the open, so there can be a backlash. If they are openly recruiting, it makes it easier to recruit opposition for them.

      If they are driven underground, they'll still exist. They'll still recruit but there won't be that backlash.

      Count myself lucky because I'm white, so I don't have to worry if they hit critical mass?

      I'm not white. These assholes getting that critical mass is a worst case scenario for me. I believe in ideological consistency. If freedom of speech isn't for the worst among us, then it's not for any of us.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    5. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's just that I still remember when "I disagree with what you say but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it." was the ideal to which we aspired.

      That old trope? Who gives a shit what some old dead rich white guy had to say in defending his privilege and racism?

      Ideas are weapons of mass destruction, they must be tightly monitored and controlled, and some ideas like those of Nazis and other Conservative/Right/Republican/Christian groups must be outright banned and those spreading them hunted down and imprisoned or killed.

      It's the only way to assure peace, equality, and tranquility in our society.

    6. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      I thought of the same thing; let them expose themselves for who they truly are. And they will just retreat back underground...

      Let's just both hope that we have a contingency plan in place for a "critical mass" crisis. I too am for ideological consistency; however I'm still very undecided on the idea of extending such freedoms to groups that have, in the past, actively engaged in open warfare against the USA and cost millions of lives in said wars. We already fought the Nazis once in WWII, and fought the Confederacy back in the Civil War. Even though I am a strong believer in freedom of speech, allowing groups who align themselves with those who have waged actual open battlefield war against us is a bit foolish.

    7. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Wordpress is denying nobody free speech. Wordpress is saying "not on their trademark". Wordpress thrives because people are comfortable with Wordpress blogs, and if you force them to host anything not clearly illegal you're going to hurt their business.

      Let them find another host, or use their own server.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    8. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by Lord+Kano · · Score: 1

      You're retroactively inventing a justification because you do not like the target.

      LK

      --
      "Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
    9. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      I'd sooner have these people out in the open, where they can be monitored and action taken (when appropriate), than driven "underground". Denying them "public" platforms means they turn to alternative methods and in the end we end up with a large multiple of people like Anders Behring Brievik (whom is partially a direct result of the actions taken by European nations to suppress everything Nazi-related) instead of just a handful.

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    10. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      I don't know for sure what their motivation was, and I doubt you do either. I'm sure that they make more money by giving the impression that Wordpress blogs don't transgress certain limits. That, to a libertarian, should be complete justification for removing the blog, being a legal action according to published rules performed by a private-sector company to increase profit. Said libertarian would strongly protest against any government suppression of Nazi free speech, and so would I.

      There's lots of views I really don't like, and I'd expect a good many of them to be on Wordpress blogs, conforming to the terms of service.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    11. Re:It's left-wing fascism. by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

      True, what would have been better is if they had their march and no "counter protesters" showed up, no news gave them any face time, etc. Just mostly ignore them by the general public, like your supposed to do when your two year old throws a tantrum at home. Being violent, yelling, etc back at them just pushes people further into the "we're at WAR!" mindset. I hate to advocate law enforcement monitoring anyone, but when people align themselves with the idea of genocide and ethno-states, with groups that have actively engaged in open warfare against the country...I honestly don't know what should be done to defuse it all. I do know, however, Trump is not helping with that.

  105. Wordpress hosted ISIS??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh, no, they didn't. You're a lunatic.

  106. Re:Fascist by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Have you even watched the fucking video? He starts speeding up in a relatively unpopulated part of the street, and drives into a larger body of protesters. Why are you people so interested in making this white supremacist look like a victim?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  107. Re:Fascist by andydread · · Score: 1
  108. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    Like most things, the truth is somewhere in between, and trying to pretend otherwise just makes people look like ignorant fools.

    There has been a bit of a sea change. While it is easy enough to claim that people who want nothing to do with the White supremacists and Ku Klux Klan members and their websites and actions are somehow equivalent of driving your nice new car into a crowd of people and ending a person's existence - it isn't all that surprising that a lot of us don't particularly want to be associated with the White Supremacists or the Klan. Vanilla ISIS don't cut it.

    That is pretty simple. But here is the problem.

    People who will drive their cars into crowds of people that they don't agree with, are not going to be swayed by the rest of us just saying "We embrace you because your opinion is equal to ours". Nope. People who lynch black people and chant "Blood and soil, and drive their cars into protesters will only demand more.

    There is a history with them. And like it or not, it must be forcefully responded to either now, or when they set the world on fire. The last time they held sway in much of the world, it got a little messy.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  109. Where were you with OWS??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where were all you morons crying voltaire when leftits and anticapitalists were exercising their freedom of speech and freedom to protest? Then it was "Hey, you're getting in the way of ordinary people, making their lives a little more awkward, you're not allowed to do that! Go and protest far away from people, you morons!!!!" Voltair was told to fucking shut it then.

    And what about Jeff Sessions going after 1.3 million viewers of an anti-trump site? Where were you crying about the freedom of speech is absolute then?

    Asshole.

    1. Re:Where were you with OWS??? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In the UK there was no adverse coverage of the Occupy movement's desire to protest, or their right to do so.

      There were complaints that they were a fucking nuisance shitting in the street and raping each other.

      You want to march past my house complaining that my cat purrs too loudly, you go right ahead.
      You want to camp in my garden and stop me emptying my bins, I'm going to tell you you're out of order.

      Is that so fucking hard to comprehend?

  110. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's PR and fear. Who wants to get involved by tacitly supporting such groups. The backlash from the left is noticeable and the media willingly cooperates to drum up the fear factor.

    Unfortunately Marxists are very good at PR and internet campaigns. They are well funded. They don't randomly show up at events - it's planned from afar. None of this is organic in any way. But tech companies, government officials, and the media are terribly afraid of the left, or in complete agreement.

  111. Trump will pardon the Charlottesville killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Trump land.

    Todays -1 crazy, is tomorrows Trump plan.

    George Zimmerman springs to mind. Trump will use the Presidential Pardon to free the KKK man.

    1. Re:Trump will pardon the Charlottesville killer by fuzznutz · · Score: 1

      Welcome to Trump land.

      Todays -1 crazy, is tomorrows Trump plan.

      George Zimmerman springs to mind. Trump will use the Presidential Pardon to free the KKK man.

      I hate to smack you back into reality, but Zimmerman was found not guilty in a public trial. I know you Berkeley types think that CNN had already found him guilty, but no pardon, Presidential or otherwise, was required.

  112. Denying Nazi's is not a slippery slope... by DogDude · · Score: 1

    If you can't tell the difference between Nazi's and other people, then either you're an idiot, or you're intentionally trying to make some point that doesn't make any fucking sense. It's not a "slippery slope" to deny Nazi's web hosting.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Denying Nazi's is not a slippery slope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yes it is.

    2. Re:Denying Nazi's is not a slippery slope... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      , sir, are the idiot. The ACLU disagrees with you, and has actively defended NAZI's right to speak:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Party_of_America_v._Village_of_Skokie

    3. Re:Denying Nazi's is not a slippery slope... by Cederic · · Score: 1

      If you can't tell the difference between Nazi's and other people, then either you're an idiot, or you're intentionally trying to make some point that doesn't make any fucking sense

      I sure as fuck can't tell the difference between people being labelled as Nazis and other people.
      https://twitter.com/Rosie/stat...

      It's not a "slippery slope" to deny Nazi's web hosting.

      Well according to you and Rosie most of the US Government should lose its web hosting then.

      That's how fucking farcical this is.

  113. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense to me. We need to round these people up. We need to tattoo some kind of identifying mark on them, so that good people who believe in social justice will not inadvertently associate with them. Then we need to seek out the avenues where they spill their bile hatred and remove those avenues of communication. Next we need to prevent them from engaging in commerce or employment with good hard working folks. If we could only find a camp for them. At the very least we need to smash any idols, or statues that they hold dear. Good hard working Social Justice Warriors need to find a solution to the problem of right wing hate

  114. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    You guys are doing a shit job of taking over. Say what you want about the nazis, at least they were fucking competent.

    A couple thoughts on that. The alt-right folks have inadvertently hurt their cause badly. A lot of the statues of the second place finishers in the war of Northern agression are coming down, more than before.

    The Nasties were competent after a fashion, but their hyper agressive stance and hate based ideology just burnt itself out. Right wing, left wing, notwithstanding, hate cannot work for very long. Because in the bigger scheme of things, ideologies need to amp it up. So eventually hate based ideology becomes "Everyone is a traitor and must die, except for you anid I. And I'm beginning to think you are traitor."

    To be honest, it relaxes me no end to see how fucking hopeless most of the alt-right are as human beings. Lots of bleating, but fuck all else. Long may it continue.

    Sometimes bad babies need spanked though.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  115. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the left wing media has reportedly been shown peddling fake news to support their views and I'd like to know all the facts of the matter before making a judgement? The fact is that "antifa" is a violent left-wing group that exists to disrupt peaceful conservative protests. It's entirely likely that if not an outright false flag, the attack was purposely provoked to try and build sympathy for their side. It's a tactic that they use over and over again.

    Until I see evidence that this wasn't a provoked attack, I refuse to pass judgement.

  116. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And the previous bailouts and the wars were started by republicans.

    Almost every single US international war started under a Democratic administration. Democrats also voted for the bailouts and Republicans voted majority against them.

    But herrrppp-derrrppp der ebil repurblikerns!

    Fucking lying idiot.

  117. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Cito · · Score: 1

    Wrong.

    Supreme Court ruled that corporations are a person. They were granted personhood and given the same rights as a person. That's how incorporation gives full protection since you cannot sue the ceo personally. you sue a ceo or sue anyone in the company for the company's doings it automatically gets protected by the corporation since it acts as an umbrella protection to its workers. Incorpation is the act of giving personhood status to a corporation in legal and foreign trade circumstances.

      This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. Â1 (United States Code), which states:

            In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwiseâ"

            the words "person" and "whoever" include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals

  118. Two Words - Self Host by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

    This is a problem with using WordPress.com to host your content. WordPress.com can then decide if it wants to host your content. There is a self hosted version of Wordpress, which is typically referred to WordPress.org, or just "WordPress" by people involved in WordPress development. This "version" of WordPress allows for you to deploy on any server running PHP + MySQL, and doesn't involve making calls back to WordPress.com for the purposes of political correctness (UNLESS you install the JetPack plugin, which bridges many of the helpful features of WordPress.com into WordPress.org.) WordPress.com is a complete service, closer to SquareSpace or Wix. WordPress.org is a CMS, similar to Drupal or Joomla!

    Seriously, if you are doing shady stuff, why not protect yourself? Register your domain in a country that doesn't care at all, or supports your form of bizarreness. Then, point the name at a server which you either control, or is really an empty container (AWS EC2?) again preferably hosted in a country that either doesn't care at all, or supports your particular flavor of perversion.

    I see this all the time. People either:
            1.) Break a law
            2.) Are obscenely offensive
    then get caught/in trouble / kicked offline, and then it's "news." This shouldn't be "news" if they actually thought about what they were doing, and performed the steps I outlined above to prevent this, and also because this isn't news, it's called being dumb and making your host/registrar/provider dislike you. This is "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" but applied in the context of hanging an obscene poster from your poster holder called a website.

    1. Re:Two Words - Self Host by duke_cheetah2003 · · Score: 1

      I'll start by saying I'm not a fan of hate groups of any kind. That out of the way, let's talk free speech and hosting.

      Roll your own sounds like a fantastic idea, cut out all the middle men and do it yourself so you can get your vomit filled garbage somewhere someone else has a chance to see it. Free speech right? Sure. It's cool to spew hatred and vomit onto the internet, if we kicked people off for that, there would be no one using the net anymore.

      But there is a fly in the ointment here. The suppression of these sites is far beyond getting the boot from some CMS. They've been outright denied even domain registration (GoDaddy booted first, then Google said 'no you cant come here, go away.') That's some suppression right there. I know it's not a 'state entity' doing the suppression, but that doesn't change what is it.

      This is where I get very worried and bothered. Yes, in this case, MOST OF US agree this kind of hate-speech is beyond offensive and we outright applaud it's suppression by various entities standing up for good taste. This bothers me, and it really has nothing, in my perspective, to do with what happened 'in reality,' with all the torches and people being run over by a freak in a car. That is outside the scope of my concern regarding this post. Suppression is not good folks. I don't care WHAT you're suppressing. It never works out good in the end when we cheer for suppression.

      Today, we stand fairly united that this sort of vomit-filled hatred is pretty darn offensive, and we're applauding the suppression by non-governmnent entities 'taking a stand' against that garbage. Lots of warm and fuzzies to go around for everyone while we suppress an unpleasant viewpoint. Careful how you tread folks. Your speech might lose the favor of the populace and be targeted for total legit suppression. Just realize where your warm and fuzzies are coming from. You're suppressing a group. Groups tend to get stronger and more radical when they're suppressed. Just ask any terrorism victim how that suppression thing is working out.

      Remember our elementary education: Two wrongs does not make a right.

    2. Re:Two Words - Self Host by brian.stinar · · Score: 1

      The DNS hole is why I addressed domain registration with the statement:
              Register your domain in a country that doesn't care at all, or supports your form of bizarreness.

      I think it's a good idea to understand the different links in any system, especially if you're going to rely on it for communicating an important message. I'm not making a point in favor for, or against, refusing service to people (suppression?) but saying that if you ask yourself "Hey, would it be useful for someone to suppress my message?" and the answer is "yes" it might make sense to take some basic precautions. Such as not 100% relying on a otherwhere cloud-magical host that can turn you off immediately.

      There are some basic, basic precautions people can take to provide high fidelity web services. Having domain registration with GoDaddy and then running your website through WordPress.com is not what I would consider taking those precautions. There are something like 400 registrars that can be used to register a domain. GoDaddy and Google are two of them. If they don't want your business, someone else will.

      That's all I'm saying. I don't really worry too much about the free speech implications, censorship, suppression, moral superiority, terrorism, warm fuzzies, two wrongs making a right, means-ends, ends-means, or basically anything related to that. If you want to keep your website running, don't rely on super entry level technologies, and registration companies that are going to bow to U.S. political pressure at the drop of a hat.

  119. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by OhPlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?

  120. Soros Jew world view by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Subject: From the Jew Talmud:

    1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."

    2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."

    3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."

    4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."

    5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."

    6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."

    7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."

    8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."

    9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."

    10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."

    11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."

    12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."

    13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."

    14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."

    16. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."

    17. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."

    18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."

    19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."

    20. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."

    21. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."

    22. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."

    23. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."

    24. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=j...

    You can clearly see what they think of you all (yes, non-jews are Goy/Goyim and Gentiles from above), and quoted straight from their own belief systems (their bible(s)).

    Think about that. I didn't write it either. The Jews did.

  121. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

    inspire magazine telling how to derail trains is bad.

    This is about free speech and not nazis or there ideas.

    But a site saying the rich jews are putting the working man down is not on the same level. That is covered free speech. and just banning based it being about white power in general is taking there free speech away.

    Funny how some alt-righters have no idea of what exactly free speech is.

    You are allowed to say whatever you like, short of threats of violence. The Government isn't allowed to arrest you for it.

    But we are allowed to react to what you said. It's probably heartbreaking for the Supremacists and Klan, but if you want to open a "Blood and Soil" website, no one is forced to host it. Your freedom of expression does not mean that I have to let you burn a cross on my lawn.

    Buy your own servers, and host your own sites. Or move your sites offshore. Places in Russia will probably be happy to host them.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  122. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by OhPlz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's the opposite of a polite society.

  123. Re:Fascist by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    I can't figure out whether you're just a paranoid schizophrenic or a racist.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  124. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let this white supremacist scum crawl back in cracks and under rocks. That's where cockroaches belong.

  125. Re:Fascist by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Due process?

  126. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by mysticgoat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wordpress, and Google, are both pretty savvy about "narrative" (probably true for Go Daddy, too, but I don't know Go Daddy). Being savvy about narratives is part of their corporate cultures.

    So what has changed between before the death of Heather and after it? The words on the websites had not changed significantly. The narratives are the same.

    What changed is the inescapable recognition that the words had motivated 700+ loose nuts to pick up assault weapons and march on Charlotteville, and one loose nut to use a car as a lethal weapon.

    There are limits to free speech. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater is beyond free speech protection. Getting a few dozen Good Old Boys drunk on mob hysteria, pointing them at some group and telling them "Let's you and them fight!" is also beyond the limits of free speech.

    So that is what has changed. Go Daddy, Google, and Wordpress now recognize that they can be used as megaphones to incite violence, and that violates their TOSs as well as their collective corporate conscience.

    There is a legion of white men between 30 and 60 years old who have been disenfranchised; the American Dream they had been promised is no more. Passed along from grade to grade during their school years since staying with their peers was more important than getting a solid education, their promised lifestyle of living like their Dad had, putting in forty hours a week on an assembly line until retirement but having their evenings for poker games and bowling leagues and their weekends for barbeques, has died with automation and computers. There is no way that America can send this vast horde back to school, there are simply too many of them to get them all retrained for today's decent jobs. This is a huge pol of anger and resentment that can be manipulated by persons who are unencumbered by ethical considerations, such as Rush Limbaugh, Jerry Springer, David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Donald Trump.

    It is critical that web hosts, Twitter, and similar services that can act as megaphones recognize their potential for inciting violence and enforce their TOSs.

  127. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Bullshit. That's what polite society has always been about. Modern democracy gives people wide latitude in their speech and behavior, but that doesn't mean that those who fart in public can't be called out.

    If you hold noxious views, then expect people to distance themselves from you. It's your choice to be that kind of person, and it's my choice to call you out and refuse to allow my property to be used for you to spread your beliefs.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  128. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't figure out whether you're just a paranoid schizophrenic or a racist.

    Well, there's no doubt in your case.

    It's both.

  129. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    And the original regulations, which prevented this situation, were repealed by the Newt Gingrich Congress with veto proof margins.

    Guess what, the same stupid investments of breaking up mortgages and chopping them up into AAA rated investments have already started up again, and sub-prime lending is back. We'll be lucky if there isn't another collapse in 10 years and the Republicans want to roll back Dodd-Frank the only law requiring that the banks carry enough assets to prevent such a collapse from taking them down.

    Welcome to republican Fiscal management, you take a bunch of tax payer money and give it to rich people to bail them out for the mistakes they made.

  130. Re: Fascist by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    General Lee waged war against the US. He is the very definition of a traitor.

    Traitors don't deserve statues.

  131. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you people so interested in making this white supremacist look like a victim?

    Why are you people(?) so interested in trying and finding him guilty in the media before there is even a trial scheduled? This is exactly the same way the George Zimmerman incident went. Lefty loonies were shocked when he was acquitted. But... But... But... I thought he was already found guilty...

  132. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?

    Why do you assume that I'm only "suddenly concerned about violence" Is this a thread about antifa and blm?

    You see, your weird ass logic is actually validating all the violence. Because when you answer a statement about alt-right violence by saying the left is doing it too - you've just said it's all okay.

    That's why I love it when you alt-righters go off on your tangents about Hellery, you are excusing her of everything, and you aren't even rational enough to know that. See what I did there?

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  133. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Public information, is, well, public, fat man. Is it OK to describe your bowel movements in shocking detail? Post pictures of yourself then get upset when all we see is a huge chubby delusional failure?

  134. Re:Fascist by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

    That picture doesn't show what you think it does.

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  135. Re: Fascist by fuzznutz · · Score: 2

    General Lee waged war against the US. He is the very definition of a traitor.

    Traitors don't deserve statues.

    Like George Washington? History is written by the winners.

  136. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "antifa" or anti-fascist groups wouldn't exist without the fascist groups. They wouldn't have even shown up to do counter-protests if the fascists didn't come to various locations. Everyone who says these things obviously support these fascist ideas, or at least that's how everyone around the planet perceives this false equivalency.

    Arguing that white supremacist groups, pro-Nazi groups, etc should be able to perform their what is basically a "march for treason" either supports their goals or does not comprehend what these groups actually want to accomplish. Their very loud calls for a "white ethnostate" is a call for genocide, murder, and totalitarianism; there is no other way to accomplish this goal. IMHO anyone flying a Nazi flag is committing treason, as the Nazi were most certainly considered enemies of the USA since they declared war against us. Marching with their flag is "adheres to their enemies" and "providing them aid". Now, just "displaying" the Nazi flag is covered free speech, but these marches go far beyond just display.

    I'm not even going to address BLM here, as that is a different conversation. I am just addressing the antifa vs fa problem.

    The fact that your post is marked at 4, Insightful is disturbing. Mine will probably be marked down, which is equally disturbing.

  137. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

    Wish I had mod points, sorry can't upvote.

  138. ANTIFA is fscist. Will they be banned too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ANTIFA is fscist. Will they be banned too?

  139. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You're either standing against the mouth breathers waving Nazi flags and chanting "blood and soil," or you are WITH them. Call me whatever stupid name you want, there are very few issues where such moral clarity is even possible.

  140. I guess they missed this? by NetNed · · Score: 1

    When is the media going to start mention that the driver is a diagnosed schizophrenic? and on antipsychotic medication? I find it oddly puzzling this and him beating up his mother leading to a stint in juvenile detention facility haven't been talked about really at all.

  141. Re: Fascist by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Even the possibly mythical 'free market'?

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  142. Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does every mention of the event describe it as "driving into a crowd" without mentioning that the crowd was in traffic lanes of an open street, surrounding cars and beating on those cars with bats? Would it not generate enough outrage to say, "protester killed when group attacked vehicles on street"?

  143. Re: censorship is discrimination and we need to dr by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Not today. They've gone to the Dark Web...

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  144. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    Right, but escorting people off your property because they farted might be considered a tad bit impolite. A small number of companies have very powerful control over the Internet right now and that concerns a lot of people, rightfully so. It's worth hearing both sides out. You can't turn off phone service to someone you don't agree with, you can't turn off their power.. should web hosts, payment processors, search engines and the like be treated similarly or are they more like a traditional business with a right of refusal? It's a fair question. Saying no and refusing to consider it under the guise of a "polite society" is crap.

  145. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But groups trying to push a well crafted narrative of fear that giving others equal rights will diminish their own rights

    Where can I find this agenda of the organizers of the Charlottesville event that calls for denying other citizens rights?

  146. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by OhPlz · · Score: 2

    I never said it's okay. I'm curious why there wasn't such fervor over the antics of BLM and antifa. I don't agree with supremacists on either side, and I recognize there are such on both sides. Why is that difficult to understand? What I'm asking is why is it that BLM and antifa don't get the same type of response? One person hit by a car and the media is all over it. Five cops shot dead, dozens of businesses torched, people assaulted, the media gives it some slight coverage if at all and moves onto something else in a day or two. There's a huge bias and it needs to be called out. The President saying there were two parties involved even got blow-back, and he was absolutely right.
     

  147. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Whibla · · Score: 1

    While it is easy enough to claim that people who want nothing to do with the White supremacists and Ku Klux Klan members and their websites and actions are somehow equivalent of driving your nice new car into a crowd of people and ending a person's existence - it isn't all that surprising that a lot of us don't particularly want to be associated with the White Supremacists or the Klan. Vanilla ISIS don't cut it.

    I must confess I struggled to parse this sentence. Having read it through half a dozen times I'm still going to have to disagree (with the bit I highlighted, having removed some extraneous bits). There is no equivalence between people wanting nothing to do with <insert distasteful group here> and <insert random act of violence here>. Anyone who would claim otherwise is insane - just my opinion, of course.

    That is pretty simple. But here is the problem.

    People who will drive their cars into crowds of people that they don't agree with, are not going to be swayed by the rest of us just saying "We embrace you because your opinion is equal to ours". Nope. People who lynch black people and chant "Blood and soil, and drive their cars into protesters will only demand more.

    I'm still not sure I see 'the problem', as you put it. Anyone who participates in a lynching or who has driven their car into a crowd of people has the right to demand, and receive, a fair trial, and not a lot else. Most people who are arguing for their rights are not saying "Come here, get a hug and everything will be ok", nor are they saying "we value your opinion as much as our own". No, what we're / they're saying is "you have the right to your opinion, however wrong we think it is". I'm more than a little surprised this needs to be spelled out to you.

    There is a history with them. And like it or not, it must be forcefully responded to either now, or when they set the world on fire. The last time they held sway in much of the world, it got a little messy.

    If someone breaks the law they should be tried and punished in accordance with the law. Someone, anyone, everyone, no matter what side of the political fence they sit, no matter how 'distasteful' you find their opinions, or how much their opinions accord with yours. The law is and should be blind in this regard. If someone hasn't broken the law they should not be punished, not by an arm of local or national government, and certainly not by some self appointed 'guardians of the moral majority'.

    I tend to think "Don't grant yourself powers you wouldn't want your 'enemies' to have" is a pretty reasonable way to approach interactions with people you disagree with. (And please, don't respond with "But they wouldn't do the same for you". I don't care. I can be better than that!)

  148. Re:A good start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who, that guy who condemned Nazis and white nationalists?

    He was under duress. He got an offer he couldn't refuse. "If you don't make that speech, we'll kill this dog"

  149. Re:Fascist by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Public information, is, well, public, fat man.

    Your attempts at INTIMIDATION failed. Suck it.

  150. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Zumbs · · Score: 1

    BLM and antifa have been using violence and arson for quite a while now, across the US and in Europe. Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?

    I don't know about the US, but in Europe there has been hundreds (if not thousands) of instances of arson against refugee centers over the last 2-3 years. While few of the arsonists have been caught, I think it is quite likely that they follow the same nasty ideology that the C'ville killer did. "Why are you suddenly concerned about violence now? Where have you been?"

    --
    The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
  151. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by OhPlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're making a "chicken and egg" argument. The problem is that antifa was not in response to white supremacists. It was in response to our new President being elected and a rejection of conservative/libertarian values. If you're not a liberal, you're a fascist or a racist or a bigot. That's their mantra. This whole white supremacy thing is a circus side show that the left fell for. It has nothing to do with what's been taking place over the last few years. We've had BLM torching entire city blocks, assaulting people, inciting the murder of police officers, more recently we have antifa doing similar things.. but only now does the media really start talking about violence. It's absurd.

  152. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    You do know that in some cases, it was the migrants themselves lighting the fires? They want better digs than they've been provided with.

  153. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by HiThere · · Score: 1

    It's not really that clear and straightforwards, but it's always been true that "the power of the press belongs to the man who owns one". It's *one* of the ways the wealthy and powerful use to remain the wealthy and powerful.

    FWIW, I don't use WordPress, so I don't know either their terms of service or whether they are paid for their service. If they are, and their Terms of Service don't justify their action, then they are violating a contract. Good luck enforcing it though.

    This is, however, a clear warning of how unpopular views are readily suppressed. It's not clear to me what the best answer is. I certainly don't want to be coerced into listening to the views of every nut group...these days I even use an ad blocker. And it's also true that the "echo chamber" effect is injurious to society. These appear to be in conflict, but there's also the problem of "information overload", which weighs in on some of the otherwise potential solutions.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  154. Hairstyles For men in 2018 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    hairstyles for men in 2018 2019, men hairstyles in 2018. hairstyles for men in 2018

  155. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Greystripe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Antifa has no moral or legal right to physically attack people. That woman died because Antifa physically attacked people they don't agree with regardless of whether or not the driver reacted in retaliation or out of fear.

  156. Re:This is a witch-hunt. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    No. It may just mean you're tired of listening to them. I won't listen to Flat-Earthers or Jehova's Witnesses. This doesn't mean I'm afraid, it means I don't want to waste my time on idiots.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  157. Re:Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you tell someone "Go wipe out the Jews"... that's more heinous. If you tell someone (like the NBPP) "kill a white man before he changes"... that's more heinous. If you say "white people should be exterminated" ... that's not more heinous. It's asinine... all of those statements are 100% asinine.... but not the way you are advocating.

    If you say "I hate the Jews and here's how to kill them all"... it's the same as "fuck you" and "hands up don't shoot". If you can't see the difference, THAT is why we have a 1st amendment.

    You need a course in what FREE speech means.

  158. Re:A good start by HiThere · · Score: 1

    If I had mod points, I'd mod you funny.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  159. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah the alt-left is the problem here, not the bigoted racists running people over.

  160. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The woman died because a neo-Nazi fuckwit ran her over. There is no other reason no matter how much you try and whitewash it

  161. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Want to add a few more logical fallacies to your threads there sir? You've hit several of them already, why stop now?

  162. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought everyone was a neo nazi.

    I'm going to ask a question and please be honest, who here HASN'T used the N word before. Pretty sure even black people have used it in a bad way.

  163. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I super pinky promise they have weapons of mass destruction. Trust me cuz I'm da preZ Bush. Respect my name.

  164. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is more than about disagreeing with somebody though. These people literally want all non whites to die. If you aren't white, then you are a problem. There is no compromise.

    I agree they should have the same laws we do, but don't expect companies to put up with their racist bullshit if it starts to incite violence.

    You can't go around with the message of "non whites are the problem, therefore they must be exterminated" and expect people to put up with your shit for too long. There is a limit. And once
    Violence enters the picture, that is the limit.

  165. Re: censorship is discrimination and we need to dr by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Only because that's what they voluntarily chose to do. It certainly wasn't necessary in order to keep the site up.

  166. Re: Fascist by JohnFen · · Score: 1

    Yes, even that.

  167. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you knew the world you'd know that political extremism is far more prevalent in Europe than it is in the US, and there they flat out ban it all. So if in the US where they're allowed to post it, we have less extremism than in Europe where they aren't, what does this say to the effectiveness of their speech?

    Here's the problem with your post. It's posted by you. You say "I'd say..." but you post a lot. And you never make convincing arguments, you never post evidence supporting your posts. You basically come in, say "this is what I think so thus you're an idiot" and call that a post. With your posting frequency I'm moderately certain you are either too young to work or retired, but with the blithering nonsense you constantly post, I have to assume you aren't retired. I'm moderately certain you're a child. If you aren't, you act like one.

  168. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    IMHO, her death could have been prevented if the police had properly separated traffic from pedestrians. I'll have to double-check, but Charlotesville's downtown mall is mostly pedestrian with just a few motor vehicle crossings. The police should have known that counter-protestors would expand dense pedestrian activity well outside the park, and on to the downtown mall and its motor-vehicle crossings. There were two other vehicles doing what looked like an attempt to crawl through pedestrians. That should never happen during a major event like this. The entire downtown should have been protected with police cars blocking vehicular access.

    Ultimately of course, the responsibility lies with the perpetrator; but poor event management gave him the opportunity to carry out his motive.

  169. Meanwhile... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Che wearing Marxists and Communists and AntiFa types can still setup GoFundMe's, rant about punching Nazis on their Wordpress that has a domain registered at GoDaddy. I don't hate the policies, I hate the fact that they only apply when it is convenient.

  170. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    George? Is that you Mr. President?

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  171. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by The+Snowman · · Score: 1

    war of Northern agression

    You mean the war where the South fired first?

    --
    24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
  172. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    Well, there are shades. Protecting a statue of American history is not a bad thing. Murdering someone, like that woman was a bad thing. The leaders of the white trash should have told their people that violence will harm their cause. If they go about this issue in a nonviolent way, they might have easily won. Especially if the "left" side kept up their own violent ways, because, they were not saints in this conflict either. They just didn't go about killing people.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  173. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually it worked quite well. Because everyday of your life on slashdot will now be spent battling trolls. May the force be with you. Wait there were no fat Jedis. Never mind, you are on your own fatboy. You made your bed now lay in it.

  174. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This. lol I see nothing inciting violence in that picture.

  175. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    I truly want to believe this is sarcasm. I wish you had added some comments about how we could use them to make glue, or some such.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  176. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by gnick · · Score: 2

    You're either standing against the mouth breathers waving Nazi flags and chanting "blood and soil," or you are WITH them.

    Many sides... Lotta blame on many sides... Many fine people on all sides...

    Nazi rally, nazi murderer, anti-nazi protesters, anti-nazi victims. Really, how much bravery does it take to pick the side opposing nazis? Declaring "nazis==bad" and "murderer==at fault" isn't exactly revolutionary. I don't care if the protesters were carrying clubs; surely DJT isn't suggesting this was self-defense... Even deriding the protesters as "alt-left" is upsetting. Opposing nazis doesn't make you "alt-anything". It makes you a decent human being.

    MAGA!

    --
    He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
  177. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    You're talking to people who have come to agree with one another that a group of people they disagree with should be denied the right to walk down the street together. Of course they believe their phone service and power should be cut off.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  178. Re: Fascist by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Because everyday of your life on slashdot will now be spent battling trolls.

    You must be new around here.

  179. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil war != revolutionary war.

    Two different wars for two different purposes. One was faught to abolish slavery and one was to fight for a free America from British control.

  180. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    And, hell, for that matter, they can find someone else to bake their damn cake!!

    (It's a reference to another issue where this same argument was used.)

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  181. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THis is such bullshit and I am tired of seeing it. If you agree with the nazi message then you are a nazi. It's not hard. Period. You can't say "well gee those nazis have a point and I agree with them. Then turn around and say "I'm not a nazi".

    Maybe we call some of you nazis because you preach hate.

  182. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    And if you want cakes for a gay wedding, you can open your own bakery?

    C'mon, bask in the cognitive dissonance.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  183. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Watch Ken Burns' "The Civil War" on PBS. Shelby Foote's insights are incredible. He has a trilogy of books that are wonderful too. He is(was) a master of Civil War history.

    Read some criticisms of Ken Burns and his documentaries. And Foote too. They have the same weakness as any historian, even Herodotus. They are but mortal, after all. Or better yet, review some material exposing the actions taken under the "Lost Cause" mindset. One of the greatest tragedies of falsely portrayed history,, perhaps only exceeded by the Dolchstoßlegende. Try Birth of a Movement for something recent, and also on PBS.

    One of his greatest insights was the small grammatical change that happened after the War. References to the US changed from "The United States are" to "The United States is". The US was seen as a collection of semi autonomous states.

    I'm not going to blame him for you saying it was his insight, but he didn't create that particular idea either. It was not his. There are doubts as to the legitimacy of the argument, but to give him credit for it? Is mistake of its own.

    Many people felt more loyalty to their state than to the collection of states that made up the country.

    That their loyalties lead them to engaging in an act of war against their fellow countrymen in service to a cause that sought the oppression and exploitation of their fellow man is an indictment to their judgment then.

    Perhaps it would be better, if they thought more of where they loyalties had best be placed.

    Lee was such a person. He resigned his commission in the U.S. Army to fight for Virginia. The Confederacy was ancillary to his loyalty.

    His oath was to the US Army. He took a commission as an officer. I don't know the specific text of the oath he swore offhand, but I'd be fairly surprised if it did not require him to serve against enemies foreign and domestic, which would include unlawful attempts at secession promulgated by those seeking to use violence and oppression. If he was such a person, that could not fulfill said oath, he never should have sworn an oath that he did not mean.

    I might have accepted an action based on some response to real and legitimate tyrannies. Didn't happen. Lincoln was elected, there were no improprieties in the election, and yet the South immediately began to act as if he had done anything. I could understand criticism, and protesting, but they went full-on secession with the direct intent of armed violence. Despite their own oaths.

    Lee might have chosen to decline to serve. A cowardice, some might say, but I can respect a man who regrets to act. But he showed no regret. Instead, he chose to wage war. And that means his hands are stained with blood.

    Don't make him a hero for choosing that path. I can almost respect those who point to his actions after the war, where he expressed some remonstrance, but I don't find that to be the purpose of those who erect statues to him.

    They seem to be espousing a much different cause.

    The marching pace of progress in modern society is much different than 1861. At that point, we were only 71 years into the experiment of a "strong" central Federal government which was not all that strong anyway. People had more loyalty and ties to their home state than we do today.

    None of which excuses the use of violence to endorse the bigotry that was causing the oppression and subjugation of their fellow man.

    There are some who can be excused, due to their miseducation, ignorance, or being deceived. Many were even conscripted to serve in the Confederate Army. Some might have joined out of desperation, in order to eat.

    I cannot give such a pardon to the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia. There are responsibilities with command.

    Your "good ole boy" comment only shows your own ignorance of the fac

  184. Re: Fascist by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    George Washington waged war against the Kingdom of England, not the United States. George Washington is a Traitor of King George. They shouldn't have any monuments to George Washington in the UK because he was a traitor to that Kingdom.

    Unlike of course General Lee, who waged war against the United States on US soil. He's a traitor of the United States.

    Traitors don't deserve statues in the nation they Betrayed.

  185. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Civil war != revolutionary war.

    Two different wars for two different purposes. One was faught to abolish slavery and one was to fight for a free America from British control.

    Are you sure? I was pretty sure Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union. I don't remember the Gettysburg Address mentioning slavery.

  186. Re:"Free speech is great, as long as it's not tits by Shotgun · · Score: 1

    It's worse than that. Victoria Secret can parade young women in underwear that definitely look underage in larger than life billboards at the mall. A 60 yr old man would be arrested for having the same photos on his home computer if they'd been taken privately.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  187. Censorship is the root of all evil by notbob · · Score: 0

    Allowing censorship to start spreading now at the corporate level is just awful.

    This is where the start of the rise of these movements really begins to gain mainstream traction as this goes against everything this nation stands for.

    The right of all people to express their views whether they be political or religious regardless of whether anyone agrees with them or not.

    If you want to go down this road then be fair in your censorship and ban the violent leftists extremists.

    To be fair to the whole situation if these morons weren't protesting in the street and actually organized a real protest not on public streets none of this would happen but nobody wants to acknowledge the real truth that there is blame on both sides.

    Moral of the story don't be a fucking moron and get out of the street.

  188. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    This is, however, a clear warning of how unpopular views are readily suppressed. It's not clear to me what the best answer is.

    There is no clear answer. But as a metric, We can compare The activities of the White Supremacists and Neo Nazis to other groups.

    Bastille day celebration with a terrorist driving a truck through it. 84 people killed. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/0...

    Man drives into crow of people in Israel, killing one http://www.timesofisrael.com/d...

    Man tries to drive a car through a crowd in Belgium https://themuslimissue.wordpre...

    How ramming cars into crowds became a major terror tactic (London attack) https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    Another attack in Stockholm https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0...

    Attack in Heidelberg http://www.nbcnews.com/news/wo... Isreal again. http://www.westernjournalism.c...

    London again: http://www.dw.com/en/terrorist...

    And that is just some of them.

    So what we have here is a tactic used by terrorists. Pick a crowd, and play Bowling for Humans. Looks like the Bastille Day guy has the highest score so far. This is pretty obviously Terrorism, and the only people who support it is likewise terrorists and their supporters.

    So we have a group of people who support supremacy of one race over another - That would be the Klan. They have a history of violence and murder.

    We have Neo-Nazis. Another group of people that support the National Socialist movement and all that entails. These two groups dovetail rather nicely together.

    Then we have a member of the second group who runs his car through a crowd of people in Virginia.

    It all fits. I don't negotiate with terrorists, nor do I wish to appease them. Appeasement doesn't work with Nazis, if we recall our history. And Blut und Boden puts the Neo's directly into Nazi ideology.

    Which is why I put support for these people into the support of terrorism, support that it's practicioners desire to become mainstream. And if that happens, what are the odds that they extend anything remotely resembling free speech to others. Historically it has been exactly opposite.

    Perhaps my detractors will mod this up to 5 to show their support for free speech that offends them.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  189. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    war of Northern agression

    You mean the war where the South fired first?

    Not the revised historical account.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  190. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    And if you want cakes for a gay wedding, you can open your own bakery?

    C'mon, bask in the cognitive dissonance.

    I have to confess, I'd feel a little odd eating a tallywhacker cake.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  191. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes it is.

    Thanks for conceding you are a loser.

  192. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 1

    Antifa has existed for decades. Antifa is not new, the only reason why you're hearing about it now is that there are a lot more fascists coming out of the woodwork at the moment because there's a friendly federal administration that somehow manages to consistently weasel out of condemning nazis unless someone pushes a prepared statement under his nose and tells him to stop talking once he's done.

  193. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To antifa, everyone who is not part of antifa is a fascist.

  194. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by OhPlz · · Score: 1

    You do realize that BLM makes the exact same kind of statements and have done so since the beginning? The white power stuff is a distraction, they pop up every few years or so, get some headlines, and then go away again. No one supports their BS other than themselves. What antifa wants is a more socialist type of government which is very unfavorable to many Americans. That's a big part of how Trump managed to win. Antifa is really anti-Trump, anti-Brexit, anti-anything-nationalist. Now you're going to see non-liberals tarred and feathered by the actions of a bunch of racist dipshits that weren't part of any of this until now. That's why I think making some of these online services content-neutral is worth talking about. Even if it just dials back the rhetoric and witch hunt.

  195. I am NOT a product of my environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: Largely, MY environment IS a product, of me & MY kind (I don't necessarily like it, I deal with it, & that is how it is).

    * Thank the GOOD LORD it still is... why??

    The righteous man - "Yea, though I walk thru the valley of the shadow of death..."

    APK

    P.S.=> I sincerely say this: I do not think someone like you would survive it. Why? Your kind gets ZERO respect especially here... apk

    1. Re:I am NOT a product of my environment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can your retarded ass possibly write a more incoherent set of sentences.
      It is like retarded monkey was given a typewriter and instead of pressing keys it decided to just fling shit at it until words appeared.
      As best as I can figure from what you wrote: you live in a shit hole, you are responsible for living in a shit hole, but you don't like living in the shit hole you created.
      Maybe you should stop wasting everyone's time on slashdot and instead work on making the shit hole you live in not such a shit hole.
      This would also have the knock-on effect of making slashdot not a shit hole of your posts.

  196. Actually? That is not what I heard him say by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: HIS problem w/ his own breed of human is, iirc, "The jews are too tribal/clannish" well, humans do that.

    * Soros' problem? He does NOT KNOW when to "hit the brakes" for a way to put it....

    APK

    P.S.=> IF I am off/wrong, feel free to correct me... apk

  197. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    alt-left is a term invented by you nazis to try to equate your evil with people who just want to control how others live their lives.

    FTFY

  198. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sure they can. You simply need to move the goal posts on what is a fascist. Redefine it, and you're good to go again. A club to belong to, a echo chamber to claim 'moral highground', and some fun violent fieldtrips. A raison d'être.

    Just look up to the anons a few posts up: 'if you don't actively fight the nazi, you're a nazi' - if you don't attend our club, you're obviously the enemy and so our club has a reason to continue to exist.

  199. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    700 armed people, and no one was shot? Cool story, bro.

  200. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks super clear. It's in plain English. Bunch of left racists with a sign spelling it out. Done.

  201. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive str by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A fair share would be a flat amount for everyone, or one based on what is used by them. Everything past that is just increasing amounts of unfairness 'but for the Greater Good'.

  202. Re: Fascist by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

    Yes, if you jump to conclusions you'd think that.

    If you googled it, you'd find that it's the "white mans march" they're protesting against.

    It's not a very catchy slogan though, I'll grant you

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  203. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    That picture doesn't show what you think it does.

    Leftists engaging in identity politics, using violent imagery which supports attacking a race of people(whites). That picture shows exactly what it means. They're no different then any other racist.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  204. Re:Fascist by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

    Leftists engaging in identity politics, using violent imagery which supports attacking a race of people(whites). That picture shows exactly what it means. They're no different then any other racist.

    They're against nazis and other white pride types. Which I thought was a no brainer but apparently is up for debate these days.

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  205. Re: Fascist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure?

    We're sure.

    I was pretty sure Lincoln fought the war to preserve the Union.

    And also abolish slavery. Remember when they passed the 13th Amendment?

    I don't remember the Gettysburg Address mentioning slavery.

    Have you suffered head trauma lately? Read it again:

    Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

    Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

    But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    It's right there. A bit oblique, but present.

  206. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by Cederic · · Score: 1

    On the Reddit website there's a discussion forum titled StormfrontorSJW in which I believe people post comments such as the one to which you replied, and invite people to guess whether it was written by a neo-nazi or someone that could be described as a social justice warrior.

    I don't frequent it, but the times on which I've seen it referenced it does turn out to be bloody scarily impossible to tell.

    Which is one reason it's interesting to see so many technology companies shutting down only one side of the extremist dialogue.

  207. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Cederic · · Score: 1

    I can't mod you because I'm replying to you instead.

    Terrorists shot people in Paris.
    They then shot people again in Paris.
    They shot people in Holland when I was living in Germany
    They shot people in Northern Ireland.

    According to you, that makes anybody that shoots someone a terrorist.

    The incident in Charlottesville does not look like a pre-planned and intentional attempt to kill multiple people with a large vehicle. Shitty choice of vehicle, no follow-up, very different behaviour from the driver to the other incidents you've quoted.

    It's possible for people to commit crimes without it being terrorism. The police certainly think so, they've charged him with murder and not terror related charges - and that's the police that fucking chose not to prevent illegal demonstrators turning up with weapons and assaulting a legal demonstration.

    If they don't think it's terrorism then this is not pretty obviously terrorism. Call it what it is: Suspected murder or manslaughter. Those are serious crimes and will be prosecuted using actual laws with very severe punishments. Why the fuck isn't that good enough for you?

  208. Re: Fascist by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Hmm... that way it does have a semblance with "Nazi" or "Fascist"...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  209. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
    I think the actual attack has gotten about as much coverage as any other domestic terror attack. I still remember all the articles going around when that kid shot up a black church trying to "start a race war". This latest is still in the news because of the Trump angle, and frankly without that I think the Daily Stormer part would have gone relatively unnoticed.

    The President saying there were two parties involved even got blow-back, and he was absolutely right.

    Yes, there was the side that was attacked by a terrorist and a side that wasn't. I expect Trump didn't have to bring up the sides at all, he could have just denounced the attack, but for some reason he felt the need to try and edge in some weasel-words to de-victimize the wounded party.

  210. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The initial bailouts were pushed by President Bush (no. 45), and then more favored by Democrats than Republicans in Congress. I'm calling that bipartisan.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  211. Re:Fascist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    And racial discrimination and hate speech aren't an uncommon occurrence by the right. Antifa identifies as left-wing, but not all leftists identify with Antifa. I, personally, wish they'd go away, partly because I don't approve of violence, and partly because they make leftists look bad.

    So, we had a right-wing rally in which a rightist drove a car into a crowd and killed a woman. Clearly the right wing is violent.

    So, if you will refrain from blaming the entire left for Antifa, I'll refrain from blaming the entire right for Nazis.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  212. Re:Fascist by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    The only people that can't cope with multiple political parties are conservatives that assume that anyone that doesn't follow their group think is some kind of Communist.

    That's at least as accurate. I see leftists attacking Nazis for being Nazis and right-wing people attacking leftists for being Communists, personally.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  213. Re:"Free speech is great, as long as it's not tits by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    Depends on the state. The Federal definition of child pornography requires that the subject be an identifiable person under the age of 18, and requires some actual sexuality as opposed to just nudity (unless you consider lascivious display of the genitalia to be plain nudity). Even as is, this leads to the odd result that it's legal for me to have sex with a 16-year-old girl (age of consent varies by state), but it's highly illegal for me to have any video of it. Girls posed in underwear and not explicitly doing anything sexual fall way outside the Federal law. Not all states have laws stricter than the Federal one.

    Now, if you're saying that the police could break into the 60-year-old's house, confiscate anything that might possibly hold an image, arrest him, ruin his reputation, run him through a terrifying process, and then have the case dismissed, that's more plausible.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  214. Re:Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive strik by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    That's the opposite of a polite society.

    You are the opposite of a gentleman.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  215. Re:getting a fair jury trail may be hard and the l by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    They're going to have to do an expensive search for jurors, I'd think. That's how all highly publicized crime trials work. Nothing out of the ordinary.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  216. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

    I can't mod you because I'm replying to you instead.

    Terrorists shot people in Paris. They then shot people again in Paris. They shot people in Holland when I was living in Germany They shot people in Northern Ireland.

    According to you, that makes anybody that shoots someone a terrorist.

    Are you stupid? People shoot people all the time, and make no mistake, they aren't terrorists. Seriously guy, if this is what your intellect raises to, I am beginning to understand why you have a desire to allow terrorists to have free reign under teh aegis of "Free Speech".

    Call it what it is: Suspected murder or manslaughter. Those are serious crimes and will be prosecuted using actual laws with very severe punishments. Why the fuck isn't that good enough for you?

    The fuck it isn't good enough for me is that there is a difference between a murder of passion or criminal or pecuniary intent and a person who is a member of a terrorist group using a terrorist tactic and resulting in what is classic terrorist ways and means, two groups that have a history of exaclty that. Or are all of the klan lynchings and other killings fake news too?

    =

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  217. Re:inspire magazine telling how to derail trains i by Cederic · · Score: 1

    People shoot people all the time, and make no mistake, they aren't terrorists.

    People run people over all the time, and make no mistake, they aren't terrorists.

    You keep bleating on about terrorists but fail miserably to make anything remotely resembling a case that this is a terror attack.

    Or are all of the klan lynchings and other killings fake news too?

    Wait, this guy was in the klan? Sorry, that's a new claim, I hadn't encountered that one before.

    Seems to me you're talking utter fucking nonsense. Is that a detraction? I'm not sure, it may just fall under justified abuse.

  218. Don't you think... by dddux · · Score: 1

    Don't you think it would be advisable not to give these creeps any more news coverage? It's too much and people are people. Some could decide that these nutwits are victims and worth considering joining their ranks. Just ignore them. Far from mind keeps them - far from mind. Easy.

    --
    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." - Jiddu Krishnamurti
  219. Re:Fascist by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    They're against nazis and other white pride types

    So you're trying to argue they're protesting against one type of supremicism, but not others. Gee, seems to me that belonging to an ideology that's killed 80m people in the last 100 years vs less then 15m wouldn't be a great thing to promote, but what do I know.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  220. Re:Fascist by Bromrrrrr · · Score: 1

    So you're trying to argue they're protesting against one type of supremicism, but not others.

    You can be against nazis and at the same time be against other things. For instance, I don't like nazis but I also dislike peanut butter. Doesn't really fit on a banner though.

    Gee, seems to me that belonging to an ideology that's killed 80m people in the last 100 years vs less then 15m wouldn't be a great thing to promote

    First you argue that they must be anti white because you misread a banner. Now you argue that because they're anti-nazi they therefore must be pro-communism? Surely stupidity has killed more than 8M people?

    but what do I know.

    Indeed

    --

    What a rotten party, have we run out of beer or something?
  221. Re: Social responsibility or a PR pre-emptive stri by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

    Reacting to comments with the limited vocabulary of the Left leaves you accusing everyone so dishes with you of being a fascist. That's stupid.

    And posting nonsensical objections when called out for being a Nazi apologist makes you what?

    Seriously, what the fuck is "the limited vocabulary of the left", and what, specifically did you see in the post that makes you think that AC's vocabulary is limited, much less "left-limited"?

    --
    This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for